THE  LIBRARY 


THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  CALIFORNIA 


LOS  ANGE  .ES 


r 


O 


LETTERS 


ADDRESSED    TO 


RELATIVES    AND    FRIENDS, 


IN   REPLY  TO  ARGUMENTS 


IN   SUPPORT   OF 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


BY   MARY    S.    B.   DANA 

ATTTHOB  OP 
"THE  SOUTHERN  AND  NORTHERN  HARPS,"  "THE  FARTED  FAMILY,"  ETC. 


NBW     EDITION. 

BOSTON: 
JAMES    MUNROE    AND    COMPANY. 

LONDON: 
CHAPMAN,    BROTHERS. 

1846. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1845,  by 

JAMES  MUNROE  AND  COMPANY, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


Stereotyped    bf 

GEORGE    A.    CURTIS; 

HBW  ENGLAND  TYPB  AMD  BTSREOTVPS   FOUXDRT. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  days  of  torture,  fire,  and  the  sword,  have,  happily, 
almost  entirely  passed  away.  He  who  changes  his  religious 
opinions  has  not  now,  in  Protestant  countries  at  least,  to  fear 
the  strong  arm  of  ecclesiastical  power,  nor  the  civil  law ;  no 
inquisition  holds  over  our  heads  its  rod  of  terror ;  no  dun- 
geons open  to  receive  us  ;  no  "  Form  of  Concord  "  is  imposed 
upon  us  ;  no  "  Act  of  uniformity  "  binds  us  to  submit  to  cer- 
tain rites  and  ceremonies.  But  is  there  not  a  kind  of  persecu- 
tion still  enacted,  which,  though  less  extreme  and  violent,  is 
quite  as  onerous,  and  no  less  difficult  to  bear  ? 

The  days  of  proscription,  slander,  insult,  and  neglect,  have 
by  no  means  passed  away.  Cold  greetings,  averted  looks, 
long  and  intimate  friendships  sundered  in  a  moment,  tell  a 
mournful  tale  in  respect  to  the  toleration  really  exercised  in 
this  country,  so  proud  of  its  civil  and  religious  liberty,  towards 
those  who  have  conscientiously  changed  their  opinions.  Nor 
are  these  the  only  methods  by  which  the  spirit  of  unyielding 
intolerance  is  developed.  Injurious  suspicions  ;  direct  charges 
which  would  almost  break  the  heart  of  the  sufferer,  did  he  not* 
feel  himself  above  their  reach  ;  the  imputation  of  any  and 
every  motive  but  the  real  one ;  all  these  must  .be  experienced 
and  endured  by  one  who  feels  it  his  duty  to  leave  the  ranks 
of  popular  or  orthodox  theology,  commonly  so  called,  and  can- 
didly avow  his  honest  opinions. 

Many  people  do  not  seem  to  imagine,  that  one  can  honestly 
depart  from  the  faith  in  which  he  has  been  educated.  Inde- 

•   550588 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

pendent  thought  in  matters  of  religion  seems  to  be  regarded  as 
an  arrogant  assumption,  and  to  excite  general  indignation  and 
surprise.  It  is  evidently  thought  to  be  an  innovation  upon 
the  established  order  of  things.  It  is  a  phenomenon  for  which 
people  are  not  prepared.  And  when  I  look  around  me,  and 
observe  how  the  great  majority  of  mankind  are  blindly  follow- 
ing the  lead  of  others,  how  few  there  are  who  think  for  them- 
selves, how  few  are  willing  to  test  their  religious  opinions 
by  comparing  them  with  other  systems  of  faith,  by  bringing 
them  all  to  "  the  law  and  to  the  testimony  "  of  God's  inspired 
word,  clinging  firmly  to  truth,  following  it  wherever  it  may 
lead,  and  boldly  rejecting  error, — when  these  things  meet  my 
view,  though  I  may  be  distressed  at  the  exhibition  of  intoler- 
ance, I  ought  not,  perhaps,  to  be  surprised  at  the  spirit  which 
is  manifested. 

That  I  have  ample  ground  for  these  remarks,  will  proba- 
bly become  sufficiently  evident  from  the  ensuing  pages  of 
this  work.  I  have  received  letters  from  various  quarters 
since  my  change  of  opinions  became  known,  some  of  the 
sentiments  of  which  have  amazed  and  appalled  me.  As  I 
have  been  charged  with  indecent  haste  in  making  a  change 
so  fraught  with  momentous  consequences,  I  wish  to  show,  by 
other  evidence  than  my  own,  that  my  change  has  not  been 
so  sudden  as  it  has  seemed  to  those  who  had  no  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  workings  of  my  mind.  As  my  motives 
have  been  unkindly  assailed,  I  wish  to  show  that  I  have  not 
been  actuated  by  mere  caprice,  but  that  I  have  reasons  for 
my  present  opinions,  which,  at  least,  satisfy  me.  So  much 
has  this  community  interested  itself  in  my  affairs, — so  much 
has  been  said  for  which  there  was  no  foundation, — so  much 
ignorance  has  been  evinced  in  regard  to  my  present  opinions, 
and  the  religious  belief  of  that  body  of  Christians  with  whom 
I  now  sympathize, — that  I  feel  it  due  to  myself  and  to  them, 
to  remove,  if  possible,  some  of  the  erroneous  impressions  of 
those  whose  injurious  remarks  are  the  result  of  ignorance 
and  prejudice,  and  not  of  malice. 


INTRODUCTION.  V 

To  some  of  the  numerous  communications  I  have  recently 
received,  I  propose  to  reply  in  the  following  pages.  It  was 
impossible  for  me  to  answer  individually  all  the  letters  I  re- 
ceived ;  and,  even  if  I  could  have  done  so,  there  were  many 
other  persons  who  were  saying,  substantially,  the  very  same 
things,  and  who  could  not  have  been  reached  by  mere  indi- 
vidual replies  to  my  various  letters.  The  extracts  I  shall 
make  from  these  communications  will,  I  think,  abundantly 
prove  that  I  have  been,  in  a  manner,  compelled  to  speak  in 
my  own  defence,  and  in  defence  of  those  whtffthrough  me, 
and  in  consequence  of  my  present  position,  have  been  exten- 
sively and  unjustly  assailed.  And  may  I  not  hope  that  I 
may  be  instrumental  in  doing  something  to  promote  the  in- 
terests of  liberal  and  enlightened  Christianity,  or,  at  least,  to 
soften  the  rigor  of  that  judgment  which  has  been  so  freely 
passed  upon  a  conscientious  and  respectable  body  of  Chris- 
tians ? 

At  this  age  of  the  world,  a  rational  religion  is  certainly 
needed  to  counteract  the  prevalence  of  infidelity ;  and  nothing 
but  a  rational  religion  will  do  this.  Those  in  high  places 
may  sound  the  alarm,  if  they  please,  and  tell  us  that  it  is 
dangerous  to  use  our  reason  in  matters  of  religion,  but  it  will 
be  all  in  vain.  We  are  not  living  in  the  dark  ages  ;  the 
majority  of  men  in  the  present  day  will  have  a  reasonable 
religion,  or  they  will  have  none.  It  will  not  always  do 
to  bind  the  consciences  of  men  to  creeds  formed  in  the 
ages  of  darkness  and  superstition.  As  the  world  continues 
to  emerge,  gradually,  it  may  be,  from  the  midnight  gloom  in 
which  it  was  enveloped  before  the  Reformation,  the  work  of 
reform  will  be  more  and  more  complete.  This  is  the  natural 
course  of  things.  The  morning  sun  slowly  dispels  the  dark- 
ness of  night,  and  shines  brighter  and  brighter  unto  the  noon- 
day, although  it  may  not  always  shine  uninterruptedly. 
Sometimes  a  cloud  arises  and  obscures  for  a  while  its  radi- 
ance ;  but  when  the  cloud  disperses,  we  find  that  the  god  of 
day  has  been  silently  but  surely  advancing  in  its  course.  So 
A* 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

is  it  with  the  glorious  work  of  reformation  and  moral  renova- 
tion. It  is  not  half  accomplished  yet.  Sometimes  the  work 
advances  rapidly ;  sometimes,  for  a  season,  it  seems  to  be 
retrograding;  but  it  is  cheering  to  perceive,  that,  on  the 
whole,  its  march  is  onward.  I  observe,  with  pleasure,  that 
many  irrational  and  unscriptural  tenets,  formerly  so  popular, 
are  now  only  nominally  held.  When  their  advocates  are 
pressed  upon  the  subject,  they  explain  them  away,  so  as  to 
make  them  mean  just  nothing  at  all ;  and  thus  they  virtually 
abandon  theaa.  And  I  also  rejoice  to  perceive,  that  liberal 
sentiments  are  slowly,  but  surely,  spreading  themselves 
among  the  great  body  of  the  people.  Let  us  thank  God,  and 
take  courage,  while  we  pray  that  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus, 
may  prosper  and  prevail  until  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 
shall  be  brought  under  its  blessed  influence  and  control. 

I  will  here  take  occasion  to  remark,  that  it  will  be  impossi- 
ble to  observe  any  great  degree  of  order  in  my  arrangement 
of  topics,  as  the  same  general  subjects  have  been  touched 
upon,  in  the  different  letters  addressed  to  me,  in  a  variety 
of  different  aspects.  I  could  not,  in  reply  to  them,  bring  to- 
gether all  the  remarks  relating  to  one  general  subject,  without 
creating  some  degree  of  confusion.  There  will,  therefore, 
perhaps,  be  a  little  repetition  of  topics  in  different  letters  ; 
but  I  hope,  on  so  important  a  subject,  that  a  little  repetition 
will  be  pardoned.  There  is  no  limit  to  the  frequency  with 
which  the  same  objections  are  advanced,  after  they  have  been 
answered  over  and  over  again. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  all  the  ensuing  letters,  with  the 
exception  of  those  to  my  parents,  and  one  to  a  particular  friend, 
are  addressed  as  if  to  one  individual ;  though,  in  reality,  this 
is  not  the  case.  I  have  pursued  this  plan,  for  the  sake  of 
friendly  concealment  and  convenience.  The  letters  of  my 
revered  father  contained  no  such  sweeping  assertions  and 
denunciations,  as  will  be  noticed  in  some  of  the  extracts  from 
other  letters.  Though  he  has  felt  the  trial  as  deeply  as  any 
other  individual,  his  method  with  me  has  been  that  of  calm 


INTRODUCTION.  Vll 

investigation  and  argument,  and  therefore  I  have  no  desire 
to  conceal  the  authorship  of  those  things  which  he  has  writ- 
ten. He  has  approached  the  subject  with  that  honest  candor 
for  which  he  is  remarkable,  and  for  which  I  honor  and  revere 
him. 

I  bespeak  for  the  following  pages  a  kind  and  candid  con- 
sideration; and  may  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  lead  into  all 
truth  both  writer  and  readers. 

CHARLESTON,  S.  C. 


CONTENTS. 


Psge. 
INTRODUCTION,          ........        iii 

LETTER  I. 

A  change  of  views,  p.  1.  The  trinity,  2.  Modified  views,  3. 
Spirit  of  inquiry,  4.  Means  of  information,  5.  Solitary  in- 
vestigation, 6.  •  New  views,  7-10.  .....  1 

LETTER  II. 

The  terms  God  and  Lord,  11,  12.  Explanations  of  Texts,  Isa.  vi. 
1-10,  compared  with  John  xii.  41,  pp.  13,  14.  Rom.  ix.  5,  p. 
15.  Phil.  ii.  6,  7,  p.  15.  Rev.  i.  6,  p.  16.  Rev.  v.  5-14,  p. 
17.  Rev.  xxii.  16,  p.  18.  1  Tim.  vi.  15,  comp.  with  Rev. 
xvii.  14,  p.  18.  2  Cor.  xiii.  14,  p.  19.  John  i.  1,  pp.  19,  20. 
Isa.  vi.  1-10,  comp.  with  John  xii.  41,  p.  21.  John  xx.  28,  pp. 
21,  22.  Phil.  ii.  6,  7,  pp.  23,  24.  2  Pet.  iii.  18,  p.  25.  Heb. 
i.  6,  p.  25.  Col.  i.  16,  17,  p.  26 11 

LETTER  III. 

Scott's  notes,  27.  "Whitby's  retractation,  27,  28.  Extracts  from 
Whitby,  29,  30.  The  divine  will,  29.  Whitby  on  the  opin- 
ions of  the  fathers,  30,  31.  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  32.  Pliny's 
letter  to  Trajan,  32.  St.  John's  Gospel,  33,  34.  .  .  27 

LETTER   IV. 

Connection  of  doctrines,  35.  Always  an  inquirer,  36.  Collateral 
doctrines,  37.  The  great  point  of  difference,  37.  Sources  of 
information,  38.  Importance  of  our  influence,  39.  Scott  and 
Newton,  40 35 

LETTER  V. 

Investigation  no  crime,  42.  Paternal  faithfulness,  43.  Caution 
recommended,  44.  Review  of  circumstances,  45,  46.  Exhibi- 
tion of  consequences,  47,  48.  .  .  .  .  .42 


X  CONTENTS. 

LETTER   VI. 

Remarks  upon  honesty,  49.  The  Trinitarian  Doxology,  50.  The 
Unitarian  Hymn  Book,  51.  Dr.  Watts  a  Unitarian,  52-55. 
Watts'  Psalms  and  Hymns,  55-57 49 

LETTER  VH. 

An  explanation,  58.  Early  opinions,  59.  Bible  phraseology,  60. 
Inquiries  and  replies,  61,  62.  Extracts  from  Dewey's  Ser- 
mons, 63.  On  the  use  of  certain  terms,  63.  On  the  Baptis- 
mal form,  64.  On  the  atonement,  65.  On  human  deprav- 
ity, 65.  On  regeneration  and  election,  66.  On  the  future 
state,  67,  68 v  .58 

LETTER  Vin. 

Inquiries  answered,  69.  Morality  of  Unitarians,  70.  Involuntary 
errors,  70.  Unitarian  writings,  71.  Lines  on  Luke  xviii.  29, 
30,  pp.  73,  74 69 

LETTER    IX. 

An  overflow  of  feeling,  75.  Love  and  honor  to  Christ,  76. 
Christ  a  King,  77.  Mistakes  corrected,  78.  Human  reason, 
79.  Expression  of  sentiments,  79,  80.  A  prayer,  81.  .  .  75 

LETTER  X. 

Unitarians  do  not  deny  Christ,  82.  Additions  to  truth  errors,  83. 
Views  of  atonement,  83.  Illustration,  84,  85.  Christ  our 
foundation,  86-S8.  ._•''-*  IP 82 

LETTER  XI. 

The  Scriptures  honor  Christ,  89.  Trinitarians  dishonor  Christ,  90. 
An  extract,  91.  Unitarians  Christians,  92.  Christ's  author- 
ity, 92,  93 .'.  .  .  .89 

LETTER  XII. 

Instability,  94.  Opinions  ought  to  be  tested,  95-97.  Who  has 
the  Holy  Spirit?  98.  No  infallible  human  guide,  99, 
100 94 

LETTER  XIII. 

Mental  freedom,  101.  General  ignorance,  102.  Assembly's 
Catechism,  103.  Inward  conflicts,  104.  Depravity,  105. 
Election,  105.  Conflicts,  106,  107.  .  .  101 


CONTENTS.  XI 

LETTER  XIV. 
Calvinism,  108-112. 108 

LETTER  XV. 
God  our  Father,  113.    Conceptions  of  God,  114,  115.    Native 

depravity,  116,  117 113 

LETTER  XVI. 

Contemplation  of  virtue  beneficial,  118.  Triumphs  of  virtue,  119. 
Fenelon,  120.  Horror  of  Calvinism,  121.  My  former  faith, 
122.  Blessing  of  freedom,  123,  124.  .  .  118 

LETTER   XVII. 
Signs  of  the  times,  125,  126.     1  Tim.  iii.  16,  p.  127.    Mysteries, 

128 — 130.    Extract  from  Robinson,  130,  131.    .          .          .125 

LETTER  XVIII. 

An  extract,  132.  Abstract  truth,  133.  Erroneous  premises,  134, 
135.  Human  creeds,  136.  Danger  of  combination,  137. 
Belief  not  voluntary,  138.  An  extract  from  Sparks,  138. 
On  vows,  139.  .  132 

LETTER  XIX. 

Truth  and  its  consequences,  140.  Volume  of  poems,  140.  God, 
our  Saviour,  141.  Christ's  words  those  of  the  Father,  142. 
A  reply,  143.  Extract  and  reply,  144-146.  .  .  .140 

LETTER  XX. 

Election,  147.  Final  perseverance  of  saints,  148.  Anti-Christ, 
148,  149.  An  extract,  149,  150.  Dogmatism,  a  sign  of 
weakness,  151, 152.  Arminians,  152.  Christ  not  the  Infinite 
God,  153.  The  trinity,  154,  155 147 

LETTER  XXI. 

The  phrase  "I  Am,"  ]56,  157.  Early  Trinitarians,  158.  Ex- 
tract from  Sparks,  159-162 156 

LETTER  XXII. 

Extracts  from  Sparks— the  Fathers,  163-166.  The  Apostles,  166. 
Roman  Catholic  Writers,  167,  168.  Lutherans  and  Armin- 
ians, 169,  Dr.  Watts,  170.  Smalridge  and  Atterbury,  171. 
Tradition  and  inference,  172,  173 163 


Xll  CONTENTS. 


LETTER  XXIII. 

Erroneous  premises,  174.  Colossians  ii.  9,  p.  175.  Absurdity, 
176.  Religious  freedom,  177,  178.  Searching  the  Scrip- 
tures, 178,  179.  Uniformity,  180.  Mental  freedom,  181. 
Injurious  imputations,  182,  183.  Christian  charity,  184,  185.  174 

LETTER  XXIV. 

Mental  suffering,  186.  Extract  and  reply,  187,  188.  An  ex- 
tract, 189.  Denunciation  unwise,  189.  The  Duke  of  Sussex, 
190.  Unitarians  love  charity,  191.  Religious  controversy, 
192.  An  extract,  193.  Phil.  ii.  6,  p.  194.  Atonement,  195. 
Mediation,  196.  Christ  ever  present,  197.  Christ's  knowl- 
edge, 198.  Omnipresence,  199.  Harsh  epithets,  200,  201.  .  186 

LETTER  XXV. 

Extracts,  202,  203.  The  light  of  the  truth,  204.  Colossians, 
chap.  i.  and  ii.,  p.  205,  206.  Creation  by  Christ  a  spiritual 
one,  206-210.  An  extract,  211.  Mystery,  212.  Creation  by 
proxy,  212.  Human  teaching  not  infallible,  213.  Extract 
and  reply,  214-216.  .  202 

LETTER  XXVI. 

Method   of  investigation,    217-219.    Use  of  reason,    219-221. 

Principles  of  Unitarianism,  222-224 217 

LETTER  XXVII. 

No  human  creeds,  225,  226.  Who  are  Christ's  friends?  227, 
228.  The  lost  sheep,  228.  Extracts  and  replies,  229-231.  .  225 

LETTER  XXVIII. 

Extracts  and  replies,  232.  Scripture  tests,  233,  234.  Testimo- 
nies of  Trinitarians,  234-237 232 

LETTER  XXIX. 

Causes  of  infidelity,  238-240.     Signs  of  the  times,  241-245.        .  238 
LETTER  XXX. 

Painful  themes,  246,  247.  Joseph  Blanco  White,  248.  General 
remarks,  248-250.  Unwillingness  to  read,  250-252.  An 
extract,  253 246 

APPENDIX, 255—285 


LETTER  I, 


January  19th,  1845. 

MY    KIND    AND    VENERATED    PARENTS  : 

IT  has  become  my  solemn  duty  to  make  to  you  an 
announcement,  which,  I  fear,  will  fill  your  hearts  with 
sorrow.  Would  to  God,  that  I  could  save  you  from 
the  pain,  which,  from  my  knowledge  of  your  views 
and  feelings,  I  am  sure  awaits  you;  but  I  believe,  as 
God  is  my  Judge,  that  truth  is  dearer  to  me  than  life 
itself,  and  I  dare  no  longer  disavow  the  sentiments, 
which,  after  thorough,  and  honest,  and  prayerful  delib- 
eration, I  have  at  length  adopted. 

I  will  keep  you  no  longer  in  suspense,  but  will  pro- 
ceed to  declare,  that  I  do  not  now  believe  that  my 
blessed  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Supreme 
God.  I  believe  that  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father, 
of  whom  are  all  things,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by 
whom  are  all  things.  I  believe  that  "  all  power,"  was 
given  unto  him  in  Heaven  and  on  earth  ;*  that  he  was 
the  Messiah  predicted  by  the  Old  Testament  writers, 

*  I  would  remark,  that  I  suppose  these  terms  to  be  applied  to  Christ  aa 
the  Messiah,  and  that  the  expression,  "  all  power,"  relates  to  his  Messiah- 
ship,  and  to  the  offices  he  was  to  perform  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  redemption  of  mankind,  which  glorious  object  was  what  his 
Father  sent  him  to  accomplish.  It  does  not  seem  natural  to  use  any  of 
these  terms  in  an  unlimited  sense.  Jerome,  one  of  the  early  Fathers,  sup- 
poses that  this  term,  "  all  power,"  had  reference  to  the  power  which  came 
upon  him  when  the  spirit  of  God  descended  upon  him  at  his  baptism. 
1 


A  THE    TRINITY. 

who,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  came  into  the  world  with  a 
commission  from  God,  and  full  power  and  authority  to 
do  the  work  which  God  had  given  him  to  do.  In  other 
words,  after  long  and  earnest  deliberation,  much  dili- 
gent study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  fervent  prayer  to 
God  for  the  assistance  of  his  spirit,  I  conscientiously 
and  firmly  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

This  doctrine  was  a  part  of  my  education.  I  re- 
ceived it,  as  many  others  do,  without  thorough  investi- 
gation, though,  I  must  confess,  it  has  often  perplexed 
me  beyond  measure.  Still  I  held  it,  as  it  seems  to  me 
all  must  do,  as  a  strange  mystery,  which  I  must  not 
attempt  to  comprehend ;  not  considering,  that  a  mys- 
tery does  not  necessarily  suppose  an  incomprehensi- 
bility; and  losing  sight  of  the  danger  of  admitting, 
what  now  appears  to  me  to  be  an  impossibility.  It  is 
impossible  for  me,  and  I  now  perceive  that  it  has 
always  been  impossible  to  make  one  of  three,  or  three 
of  one, — one  perfect  and  infinite  being  equal  to  three 
perfect  and  infinite  beings.  There  may  be  gifted  minds 
capable  of  comprehending  this  doctrine,  but  such  is 
not  mine.  It  is  plain  to  me  now,  that  I  have  all 
my  life  been  worshipping  three  distinct  beings ;  never 
having  been  able,  with  the  most  strenuous  efforts,  to 
combine  the  three  in  my  own  mind  so  far  as  to  form  a 
simple  idea.  But  now  I  bow  to  the  divine  authority, 
when  I  hear  Jehovah  saying,  i:  Hear,  O  Israel,  the 
Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord." 

But  to  return.  So  anxious  have  I  always  been  for 
clearer  views  upon  this  point,  that  I  have  eagerly  read 
everything  upon  the  Trinitarian  side  of  the  question 
which  came  in  my  way ;  yet  always  without  the  satis- 
faction so  desirable  to  an  honest  and  inquisitive  mind, 
and  always  with  the  same  melancholy  feeling,  that  it 


MODIFIED    VIEWS.  d 

•was  a  strange  mystery ;  though  still  I  felt  bound  to 
receive  it. 

And  now  I  will  relate  to  you  the  process  through 
which  my  mind  has  passed.  For  many  years,  I  have 
not  heen  able  to  believe,  that  faith  in  the  Trinity  was 
necessary  to  salvation,  because  I  saw  a  great  many 
exemplary  Christians  who  did  not  hold  the  doctrine, 
but  who  nevertheless  believed  that  Jesus  was  "  the 
Christ,"  and  "the  Son  of  God;"  and  because  the 
apostle  John  has  said,  that  whosoever  believe th  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  born  of  God,  and  that  whosoever 
shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwell- 
eth  in  him,  and  he  in  God. 

I  have  often  been  startled,  by  hearing  passages  of 
Scripture  wrested  from  what  appeared  to  me  to  be  their 
legitimate  meaning,  and  forced  to  an  agreement  with 
some  favorite  hypothesis.  Not  long  ago,  in  a  Bible 
class  which  I  attended,  the  first  part  of  the  gospel  by 
John  was  examined,  and  then  many  doubts  found 
their  way  into  my  mind,  but  not  with  so  much  force, 
or  in  so  tangible  a  form,  as  they  have  recently  assumed. 
But  had  I  ever  been  disposed  to  give  the  subject  a 
thorough  examination,  I  have  never  had  access  to  the 
arguments  in  favor  of  Unitarianism,  nor  have  I  ever 
in  my  life  before  read  upon  that  side  of  the  question. 

Not  very  long  ago,  while  conversing  with  a  much- 
loved  friend,  (you  will  know  to  whom  I  allude,)  I 
found  that  my  impressions  in  regard  to  Unitarians  and 
to  their  system  were  exceedingly  erroneous ;  and  I  ex- 
pressed a  wish  to  know  a  little  more  about  their  faith 
and  practice.  Was  this  desire  wrong?  Was  it  not  in 
perfect  accordance  with  that  Christian  charity,  which 
"  hopeth  all  things,"  and  "  thinketh  no  evil  1 " 

And  here   let  me  exonerate  from  blame  the  two 


SPIRIT   OF   INQUIRY. 

individuals  from  whom,  entirely  at  my  own  request,  I 
have  procured  the  information  which  I  wanted.  In 
both  instances,  they  expressed  a  hesitation  in  comply- 
ing with  my  request,  fearing  to  be  considered  obtrusive, 
if  not  by  myself,  at  least  by  my  friends.  I  cannot  but 
believe,  that  this  feeling  arose  from  a  confidence  in  the 
strength  of  their  position,  and  a  foresight  of  the  con- 
sequences which  have  actually  ensued. 

Now  what  was  I  to  do  ?  Shut  my  eyes  resolutely, 
and  blindly  cherish  the  faith  in  which  I  had  been  edu- 
cated, or  sift  the  matter  for  myself?  What  kind  of 
faith  is  that,  which  fears  to  stand  the  test  of  impartial 
inquiry  1  Would  not  an  ingenious  mind  lose  all  con- 
fidence in  itself,  and  its  received  opinions,  while  there 
remained  a  consciousness  of  this  fear  and  dread  of 
investigation  ?  Was  it  not  my  sacred  duty  to  "  prove 
all  things,"  and  "hold  fast"  only  to  that  which  I  found 
to  be  "good?" 

Under  these  circumstances  I  insisted  upon  having 
access  to  some  writings  on  the  subject,  and  such  as  I 
wished  were  accordingly  granted  me.  Now  I  know 
too  well  the  candor  and  nobleness  of  my  dear  parents 
to  fear  that  they  will  impute  blame  where  none  is 
deserved,  unless  indeed  they  carry  the  doctrine  of  im- 
putation further  than  I  think  they  do.  Yet,  in  the 
first  overflow  of  feeling,  they  may  not  view  the  matter 
as  temperately  and  fairly  as  they  will  do  hereafter,  and 
this  is  why  I  enlarge  upon  the  point.  Now  suppose 
that  a  Unitarian  of  my  age  and  mental  capacities — 
one,  in  fact,  situated  just  as  I  am — should  come  to  you, 
and  ask  you  what  the  Trinitarian  faith  really  was ; 
would  you  withhold  from  such  a  person  the  means  of 
information?  I  am  very  sure  you  would  not.  Be 
generous  then,  and  if  there  be  any  blame  in  the  matter, 


MEAN'S    OF   INFORMATION.  5 

let  it  rest  upon  the  guilty,  and  not  upon  the  innocent, — 
and  then  it  certainly  will  fall  upon  no  human  agent, 
but  upon  a  system  which  will  not  bear  investigation. 

Perhaps  you  will  say,  "  Why  did  you  not  bring  your 
doubts  to  us?  Perhaps  we  could  have  solved  them." 
For  an  opposite  course  I  had  several  reasons.  First, 
I  knew  perfectly  well  what  your  views  were,  and  I  had 
access  to  Trinitarian  systems  of  divinity  which  were 
considered  standard  works ;  secondly,  I  wished  to 
examine  the  subject  with  an  unbiassed,  unfettered 
mind ;  in  short,  to  forget  everything  but  the  truth  itself; 
and  thirdly,  I  did  not  wish  to  give  my  friends  unneces- 
sary pain. 

When  the  subject  first  presented  itself  fully  and  dis- 
tinctly before  my  mind,  in  connection  with  a  desire 
and  a  determination  to  give  it  a  complete  investigation, 
I  felt  an  instinctive  fear,  almost  a  horror,  at  my  pre- 
sumption. 1  took  Dr.  D wight's  sermons  upon  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  and  tried  to  be  convinced  that  I  had 
all  my  life  been  in  the  right — I  read  them  over  and 
over  again — I  had  anxious  days  and  sleepless  nights ; 
and  even  in  my  dreams  my  visions  were  of  three 
distinct  Gods,  entangled  together  in  dreadful  and  inex- 
tricable confusion.  Thus  was  I  driven  to  the  exami- 
nation of  the  subject  with  a  power  which  I  could  not 
withstand. 

My  chief  source  of  information  has  been  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  the  gospel  by  John.  I 
endeavored  to  read  with  an  unprejudiced  mind,  and  a 
teachable  spirit,  and  to  explain  passages  of  doubtful 
import  by  those  which  could  admit  of  no  possible  mis- 
take. While  thus  reading,  the  doctrines  of  the  abso- 
lute unity  of  God,  and  of  the  derived  power  and 
authority  of  his  Son,  shone  forth  from  every  page  of 


O  SOLITARY    INVESTIGATION. 

the  blessed  volume  with  a  brightness  and  a  clearness 
perfectly  convincing  to  my  wandering  mind.  I  could 
no  longer  resist  the  mass  of  evidence  which  seemed 
fully  to  establish  the  superiority  of  the  Father  to  the 
Son.  '  I  found  that  Christ  always  spoke  of  himself  as 
inferior  to  his  Father  ;  of  his  power  and  authority  as 
derived  from  his  Father, — and  it  seemed  to  me  that,  if 
the  case  were  otherwise,  (with  humility  let  me  say  it,) 
our  blessed  Lord  had  studiously  endeavored  to  mis- 
lead us. 

I  also  found  that  the  vast  number  of  texts  which 
directly  and  explicitly  asserted  Christ's  inferiority, 
could  only  be  set  aside  by  an  assumption  of  the  doc- 
trine of  two  natures  in  Christ  Jesus ;  and  even  on  this 
assumption,  such  words  could  not  have  been  used 
without  apparent  equivocation.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  small  number  of  texts  which  are  brought  forward 
as  evidence  of  the  deity  of  our  Lord,  can  be  explained 
without  doing  such  violence  to  our  reason,  as  the 
doctrine  of  two  complete  natures  in  one  person — one 
infinite  and  the  other  finite — always  must. 

It  seemed  strange  to  me,  that  our  compassionate 
Heavenly  Father,  who  so  well  knew  the  weakness  of 
human  nature,  should  require  us  to  receive  a  doctrine, 
violating  the  common  laws  of  that  very  reason  which 
he  has  given  us,  without  such  an  explicit  statement  of 
it,  and  such  an  authoritative  command  for  its  reception, 
as  would  leave  no  possible  chance  for  human  reason  to 
gainsay  or  resist  it.  But  I  could  find  no  such  state- 
ment, and  no  such  command  in  the  Bible.  Now,  I  had 
always  read  the  Scriptures  with  this  doctrine  pervad- 
ing my  mind,  and  thus  preoccupied,  every  passage  of 
holy  writ  was  made,  if  possible,  to  harmonize  with 
my  opinions. 


NEW    VIEWS. 


I  now  found  that  our  blessed  Lord  had  given  us  a 
very  different  clue  to  the  right  understanding  of  the 
Scriptures  when  he  declared,  that  all  power  was  given 
to  him  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  With  this,  his  own 
declaration,  constantly  in  view,  I  found  that  I  could 
understand  many  things  which  were  dark  before ;  that 
I  had,  in  fact,  got  possession  of  the  most  prominent 
idea, — the  current  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament. 
This  declaration  of  our  Saviour  is,  to  me,  a  most  sat- 
isfactory comment  on  those  pages  brought  forward  in 
support  of  the  deity  of  the  Son  of  God.  Now  what 
are  inferences,  and  what  are  metaphysical  arguments  to 
the  unequivocal  and  oft-repeated  declarations  of  Christ 
himself,  and  of  his  apostles  ?  With  these  for  my  guide, 
the  Bible  becomes  plain.  And  when  I  remember  that 
many  of  these  passages  relied  upon  by  Trinitarians, 
admit  of  various  readings, — and  when  I  consider  the 
well  known  history  of  the  received  version  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  our  translation  was  made  by 
Trinitarians,  under  the  auspices  of  that  pedantic  bigot, 
James  I.,  I  feel  that  the  Trinitarian  side  of  the  ques- 
tion has  had  every  possible  advantage,  and  am  per- 
fectly satisfied  with  the  views  which  I  have  adopted. 

And  now,  when  I  sit  down  seriously  to  compare  the 
system  of  doctrines  with  which  I  have  so  long  been 
fettered,  with  those  under  the  influence  of  which  my 
freed  spirit  now  joyfully  springs  to  meet  its  benevolent 
Creator,  I  cannot  but  exclaim,  "  thanks  be  to  God, 
who  hath  given  me  the  victory,  through  my  Lord  Jesus 
Christ!"  My  mind  is  disenthralled,  disenchanted, 
awakened  as  from  a  deathlike  stupor, — all  mists  are 
cleared  away, — and  this  feeling  of  light,  and  life,  and 
liberty,  arises  from  a  delightful  consciousness  that  I 
have  learned  to  give  the  Scriptures  a  rational  and 


8  NEW    VIEWS. 

simple  interpretation,  and  that,  on  the  most  important 
of  all  subjects,  I  have  learned  to  think  for  myself. 

My  views  of  my  Lord  and  Master  are  dearer  to  me 
than  ever  before,  because  they  are  more  definite.  He 
is  still  my  Saviour,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world — 
the  instrument  chosen  by  his  Father  through  whom 
to  bestow  his  unmerited  mercy  ;  a  willing  instrument, 
for  he  delighted  to  do  his  Father's  will ;  an  all-suffi- 
cient instrument,  for  all  power  was  given  unto  him. 
I  believe  that  a  living  faith,  which  will  lead  us  to 
imitate  him,  is  the  only  ground  of  our  salvation ;  but, 
while  I  fully  believe  in  the  divinity  of  his  character  and 
of  his  mission,  I  do  not  believe  that  he  was  the  Supreme 
God  himself.  I  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  his  death, — 
the  most  striking  circumstance  of  his  history, — for  it 
was  the  seal  of  a  new  and  better  covenant, — an  evidence 
of  his  divine  commission,  and  of  his  devotion  to  his 
Father's  will ;  without  which  he  would  not  have  given 
us  such  an  assurance  of  the  glorious  certainty  of  a  res- 
urrection, by  being  himself  the  first-born  from  the 
dead;  without  which  his  work  would  have  been 
incomplete,  and  much  less  calculated  to  affect  our 
hearts,  to  bring  us  to  repentance,  to  lead  us  to  God, 
and  to  sa,ve  onr  souls. 

You  cannot  suppose,  my  beloved  parents,  that  I 
have  embraced  these  opinions  hastily  or  carelessly.  It 
is  painful  to  expose  oneself  to  the  charge  of  fickleness, 
and  it  is  very  painful  to  separate  oneself  from  those 
who  are  near  and  dear;  but  God  is  to  be  my  Judge; 
to  Him  alone  I  must  answer  for  my  opinions;  to  my 
own  Master  I  must  stand  or  fall;  and  I  dare  not  disa- 
vow what,  upon  mature  deliberation,  I  believe  to  be 
the  truth.  I  love  you,  God  knows  how  well !  but  I 
love  the  truth  better;  and  your  blessed  Saviour  and 


NEW    VIEWS.  9 

mine  has  said,  "  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more 
than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me."  If  then  I  embrace  in 
my  heart  the  doctrine  which  appears  to  me  to  be  taught 
by  Christ  himself,  must  I  not  avow  it? 

With  an  anxious  mind,  an  honest,  tender  conscience, 
and  a  prayerful  spirit,  I  have  searched  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  result  is  what  I  have  told  you.  My 
mind  is  open  to  conviction,  though  I  do  not  believe 
that  any  views  can  be  presented  with  which  I  am  not 
already  familiar.  Mourn  not  over  me,  my  beloved 
parents,  as  over  one  lost  to  you  forever.  If  you  think 
me  in  an  error,  rest  assured  it  is  not  a  fatal  one.  I  arn 
firmly  convinced  that  no  doctrine  can  be  necessary  to 
salvation  which  is  not  so  plainly  revealed  that  the 
conscientious  inquirer  after  truth  cannot  possibly  mis- 
take it.  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
shall  be  saved/'  "  He  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  is  born  of  God," — about  these  plain  statements 
there  can  be  no  mistake.  Here  is  a  glorious. platform* 

*  "  It  will  appear,"  says  Dr.  Gibson,  Bishop  of  London,  in  his  "  Second 
Pastoral  Letter,"  pp.  24,  25,  "that  the  several  denominations  of  Christians 
agree  both  in  the  substance  of  religion,  and  in  the  necessary  enforcements 
of  the  practice  of  it ;  that  the  world  and  all  things  were  created  by  God,  and 
are  under  the  direction  of  his  all-powerful  and  all-seeing  eye  ;  that  there  is 
an  essential  difference  between  good  and  evil,  virtue  and  vice ;  that  there 
•will  be  a  state  of  future  rewards  and  punishments,  according  to  our  behavior 
in  this  life  ;  that  Christ  was  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  and  that  his  Apostles 
were  divinely  inspired  ;  that  all  Christians  are  bound  to  declare  and  profess 
themselves  to  be  his  disciples ;  that  not  only  the  exercise  of  the  several 
virtues,  but  also  a  belief  in  Christ  is  necessary  in  order  to  their  obtaining 
the  pardon  of  sin,  the  favor  of  God,  and  eternal  life ;  that  the  worship  of 
God  is  to  be  performed  chiefly  by  the  heart,  in  prayers,  praises,  and  thanks- 
giving, and,  as  to  all  other  points,  that  they  are  bound  to  live  by  the  rule 
which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  have  left  them  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Here 
then  is  a  fixed,  certain  and  uniform  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  containing  all 
the  most  necessary  points  of  religion,  established  by  a  divine  sanction,  em- 
braced as  such  by  all  denominations  of  Christians,"  &c. 

To  all  which  I  heartily  subscribe,  and  I  therefore  claim  the  name  ol 
Christian. 


10  NEW  VIEWS. 

on  which  sincere  Christians  of  every  name  can  meet, 
and  exchange  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  exclaiming 
in  sweet  accord,  "  thanks  be  to  God  for  his  unspeakable 
gift!" 

That  our  Heavenly  Father  may  enable  us  all  more 
perfectly  to  know  him,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  he  has  sent ;  that  we  may  increase  in 
faith,  and  love,  and  good  works ;  and  especially  that  I 
may  show,  in  all  my  future  life,  that  there  is  indeed 
the  same  mind  in  me  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus, 
is  the  earnest  prayer  of  your  affectionate  daughter. 


LETTER  II. 


THE  TERMS  GOD  AND  LORD. 
MY  DEAR  FATHER  : 

THE  words  God  and  Lord  do  not,  I  suppose, 
necessarily  denote  absolute  supremacy,  although  they 
do  denote  dominion  and  power.  In  studying  the 
Scriptures,  we  ought  to  bear  in  mind  the  common 
sense  in  which  certain  terms  were  used  by  the  com- 
mon people  at  the  time  the  Scriptures  were  written ; 
because  we  know  that,  in  the  course  of  time,  words  do 
very  much  change  their  signification.  In  the  Bible  we 
have  the  term  God  applied  in  various  ways.  In  regard 
to  its  use  among  the  Greek  and  Roman  philosophers 
and  poets,  who  lived  about  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  we 
are  informed  by  the  history  of  that  period ;  we  know 
that  the  term  was  used  with  very  extensive  latitude; 
and  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  who  were  chosen  from  the  people, 
used  their  terms  as  they  were  used  by  the  people,  and 
Intended  to  give  a  meaning  which  would  be  readily 
understood  by  the  people.  The  early  Christians 
used  the  word  God  in  relation  to  different  degrees  of 
superiority  or  power,  and  not  as  it  is  now  used,  in  an 
absolute  sense.  And  L  wish  these  facts  to  be  borne  in 
mind  while  you  peruse  this  letter.  I  am  free  to  con- 
fess, that,  as  a  general  thing,  the  term  should  not  now 
be  applied  to  any  but  the  Supreme  Being,  because  now 


12  THE  TERMS  GOD  AND  LORD. 

it  has  an  absolute  and  definite  meaning;  though,  in 
considering  those  passages  of  Scripture  where  it  is  ap- 
plied to  subordinate  beings,  it  must  still  be  used,  but 
always  with  the  fact  of  its  different  use  in  another  age 
of  the  world,  kept  steadily  in  view.* 

In  this  sense  I  do  admit  that  the  Saviour  of  the 
world,  the  Messiah,  may  be  called  a  God ;  and  I  know 
that  he  is  constantly  called  Lord ;  and  why  should  he 
not  be,  when  his  Father  made  him  both  Lord  and 
Christ*?  But  it  is  concerning  the  term  God  that  I 
wish  to  write.  It  is  then,  I  think,  a  relative  term,  a 
name  for  a  being  who  has  dominion.  Now,  we  are 
expressly  told  that  the  Supreme  Being  gave  Christ  all 
power  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Likewise,  because  the 
Father  loved  the  Son,  he  gave  "all  things  into  his 
hand."  He  crowned  him  with  glory  and  honor,  and 
did  set  him  over  the  works  of  his  hands.  And,  "in 
that  he  put  all  in  subjection  under  him,  he  left  nothing 
that  is  not  put  under  him."  Thus,  it  appears  to  me, 
in  the  sense  which  I  have  before  explained,  a  sense 
which  was  well  understood  when  the  Scriptures  were 
written,  our  Heavenly  Father  made  his  well  beloved 
Son  a  God  over  us,  and  over  all  the  works  of  his 
hands ;  as  he  made  Moses  a  God  to  Pharaoh — and  as 
he  called  them  gods  to  whom  the  word  of  God  cawef — 
and  as  he  commanded  his  people  not  to  revile  the  gods. 
Thus,  truly,  there  are  gods  many  and  lords  many;' 
yet  to  us  there  is,  in  an  absolute  sense,  but  one  God, 
the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  &c.  Christ  is 
then  made  a  God  to  us,  under  Him,  who  is  "  the 
blessed  and  only  potentate — the  only  wise  God — who 
only  hath  immortality." 

This  view  of  the  subject  explains  to  my  mind  all 

*  See  Appendix  A.  t  See  Appendix  B. 


EXPLANATIONS    OF    TEXTS.  13 

those  passages  where  Christ  is  called  God  and  Lord, 
even  as  they  stand  in  our  common  version,  though  most 
of  them  are  said  to  admit  of  a  different  translation. 
"Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and  ever"* — that 
is,  that  throne  which  God  had  given  to  his  Son,  which 
must  mean  the  seat  of  power  in  the  mediatorial  king- 
dom. It  does  not  follow  that  he  who  occupies  the 
throne  by  permission  of  the  Father,  w*ho  obtained  it  by 
the  gift  of  the  Father,  existed  from  all  eternity.  The 
assertion  is  concerning  the  throne,  or  dominion,  which 
is  to  endure  forever ;  though,  when  cometh  the  end,  it 
is  to  be  delivered  up  to  God  the  Father,  f  In  this  way 
I  can  also  understand  how  Peter  called  his  master  Lord 
of  all — "  preaching  peace  by  Jesus  Christ,  (he  is  Lord 
of  all.)  "  J  For  when  he  lifted  up  his  voice  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  he  closed  his  noble  address  to  the  men  of 
Judea,  and  all  that  dwelt  in  Jerusalem,  with  these 
words:  "Know  assuredly  that  God  hath  made  that 
same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ." 

Nor  am  I  startled  at  that  passage  where  Christ, 
according  to  Trinitarians,  is  said  to  be  "over  all,  God 
blessed  forever."  $  For  we  are  expressly  told  how  this 
can  be.  If  all  things  were  put  under  him,  he  certainly 
is  "over  all,"  and  consequently -a  God;  though  let  us 
never  forget  how  "manifest"  it  is  that  " He  is  excepted 
which  did  put  all  things  under  him."  || 

I  will  now  tell  you,  my  dear  father,  how  my  mind 
has  been  satisfied  in  regard  to  those  texts  which  you 
have  proposed  for  my  consideration.  The  first  is  Is. 
vi.  1 — 10,  compared  with  John  xii.  41.  They  do  not 
appear  to  me  at  all  to  favor  the  doctrine  of  the  supreme 

*  Hehrews  i.  8.  t  See  Appendix  C.  t  Acts  x.  36. 

§  Rom.  ix.  5.  H  See  Appendix  D. 


14  IS.    IV.    1—10,    COMP.    WITH   JOHN  XII.    41. 

deity  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  purposes  of  God  are 
constantly  spoken  of  as  having  been  accomplished  long 
before  they  literally  were.  It  is  a  common  mode  of 
speech  in  the  Bible,  and  implies  the  certainty  of  the 
fulfilment  of  God's  designs.  Thus  we  read  of  the 
Lamb  slain  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  As  the 
Messiah,  Isaiah  foresaw  Christ's  glory.  To  give  you 
my  own  ideas  of  what  may  be  the  meaning  of  these 
passages,  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  the  remarks 
they  have  drawn  forth  from  Trinitarian  commentators, 
I  will  now  quote  from  the  261st  page  of  Wilson's  Con- 
cessions of  Trinitarians. 

"These  things  said  Isaiah,  when,  by  the  spirit  of 
prophecy,  he  saw  his  glory,  i.  e.  foresaw  the  glorious 
appearance  of  Christ  on  earth  in  respect  of  the  excellency 
of  his  doctrines,  and  greatness  of  his  miracles,  and 
spake  of  him,  i.  e.  prophesied  of  Christ. — WELLS. 
[Similarly,  ERASMUS,  Op.  vii.  p.  600;  GROTIUS,  BAX- 
TER, and  HAMMOND.]  . 

"His  glory;  that  is,  according  to  the  application 
of  the  evangelist,  the  glory  of  Christ ;  though  Isaiah 
spoke  of  the  Father. — SIMON.  [According  to  the  Raco- 
vian  Catechism,  p.  116,  CHRYSOSTOM,  THEOPHYLACT, 
GUIDO  PERPINIAN,  MONOTESSARO,  and  ALCAZAR,  main- 
tained that  it  was  the  glory  of  God  the  Father  which 
appeared  to  Isaiah.] 

"  Avrov,  his,  refers  to  God MORUS  justly 

observes,  that  Isaiah,  in  chap,  vi.,  did  not  speak  of  the 
future  greatness  of  the  Messianic  kingdom. — J.  G. 

ROSENMULLER. 

"  Erie,  he  saw,  either  signifies  he  foresaw,  as  in  chap, 
viii.  56,  so  that  uvwv  (his  and  him}  refers,  in  both 
clauses,  to  the  Messiah ;  or  rather,  it  has  respect  to 
the  description  of  the  glory  of  God.  in  Isa.  vi.  1,  sqq. 


PHIL.  n.  e,  7.  15 

The  words  OF  HIM,  may,  however,  probably  relate  to 
the  Messiah,  inasmuch  as  the  antecedent  here  is  not 
more  remote  that  in  other  passages. — VATER. 

"  The  pronoun  avrov,  his,  should  be  referred  to  Lord 
(namely  God)  in  ver.  38;  ....  and  the  passage  has 
respect  to  Isa.  vi.  1,  sqq.  where  the  prophet  describes 
a  vision,  and  affirms  that  he  saw  Jehovah  sitting  on  a 
throne,  &c. — KUINOEL.  (So  BLOOMFIELD.)" 

I  will  merely  remark,  my  dear  father,  that  these 
and  similar  explanations  of  this  passage  never  fell  in 
my  way  till  long  after  my  own  mind  was  settled  on 
the  subject,  and  I  had  corne  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
contained  no  proof  whatever  of  the  supreme  divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  next  passage,  Rom.  ix.  5,  I  have  already 
noticed.* 

The  next,  Phil.  ii.  6,  7,  even  as  it  is  translated  in 
our  common  version,  so  far  from  presenting  any  diffi- 
culty to  my  mind,  is,  in  my  view,  a  strong  Unitarian 
text.  "  TFAo,  being  in  the  form  of  God" — that  is,  the 
brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person — made  so  by  Him  who  also 
created  man  in  his  own  image — "thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God."  He  came  as  the  Messenger  of 
God  to  man,  as  God's  vicegerent  on  earth,  and  in  that 
sense  it  was  no  robbery  to  proclaim  himself  equal  with 
God,  and  to  demand  equal  obedience  from  mankind. 
He  who  refuses  to  obey  Christ,  refuses  obedience  to 
the  Father,  for  the  Father  spake  to  the  world  through 
him.  If  we  read  on,  we  shall  see  how  it  was  that  he 
demanded  that  men  should  honor  him  even  as  they 
honored  the  Father.  "  God,"  says  the  Apostle,  "hath 
highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  that  is 
above  every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  JESUS  every 

*  See  Appendix  D. 


16  REV.  I.    6. 

knee  should  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess  that  he  is 
Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  THE  FATHER."  The  whole 
passage,  it  seems  to  me,  even  when  read  as  it  is 
in  our  English  Bibles,  is  a  clear  and  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  grounds  on  which  our  Master 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God;  and 
seems  intended  to  fill  our  minds  with  the  most  exalted 
ideas  of  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  "  one  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  But 
you  are  undoubtedly  aware  that  many  Trinitarians 
have  contended  for  a  different  translation  of  the  pas- 
sage. And  many  likewise  contend  that  the  expres- 
sion, "  being  in  the  form  of  God"  does  not  convey  the 
idea  of  Christ's  own  preper  deity.  In  proof  of  these 
positions,  see  Appendix  E. 

The  next  passage  you  mention  is  found  in  Rev.  i.  6. 
I  will  quote  the  text,  with  a  portion  of  the  fifth  verse. 
"  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests 
unto  God  and  his  Father,  to  him  be  glory  and  dominion 
forever  and  ever.  Amen."  Here  everlasting  glory 
and  dominion  are  ascribed  to  Christ.  And  why  not  ? 
No  Unitarian  will  object  to  this.  On  the  contrary,  they 
rejoice  to  ascribe  to  him,  as  the  Head  of  his  church,  as 
the  King  of  saints — aye,  even  as  the  King  of  kings 
and  Lord  of  lords — glory  and  dominion  forever  and 
ever.  The  kingdom  which  God  sent  his  Son  to  estab- 
lish, is  to  endure  forever,  and  his  dominion  throughout 
all  generations,  and  glory  will  forever  crown  the  head 
of  him  who  died  for  man's  redemption.  But  I  can 
see  nothing  in  the  text  under  consideration  like  a 
recognition  of  his  supreme  divinity.  On  the  contrary, 
the  first  verse  of  the  Revelations  seems  to  settle  the 
question  ^in  another  way.  "  The  Revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  says  the  author,  "  which  God  gave  unto  him." 


REV.    V.    6—14.  17 

I  do  not  see  why,  in  the  future  world,  subordinate 
worship  may  not  be  rendered  to  Jesus  Christ.  I  am 
not  sure  that,  even  after  the  Mediatorial  kingdom  shall 
have  been  delivered  up  to  God,  and  Christ's  kingly 
office,  as  it  related  to  this  world,  shall  have  ceased,  the 
well  beloved  Son  may  not  be  still  honored  as  a  king  in 
heaven,  in  reward  for  his  obedience  unto  death.  Why, 
even  we  are  made,  by  Jesus  Christ,  "  kings  and  priests 
unto  God  and  his  Father,"  and  are,  in  a  sense,  to  reign 
with  him  forever.  If  we  overcome,  we  shall  sit  with 
him  on  his  throne,  as  he  also  overcame,  and  is  set  down 
with  his  Father  on  his  throne. 

You  next  refer  me  to  Rev.  v.  5 — 14.  This  passage 
is  of  very  much  the  same  character  with  the  last,  and 
is  urged  as  a  proof  that  Christ  is  to  be  worshipped  in 
heaven.  But  here  homage  and  worship  is  rendered 
to  him  as  to  a  Lamb  slain — as  to  a  Redeemer,  and  not 
as  to  the  Almighty  and  Supreme  God.  The  worship 
here  described  is  very  different  from  that  rendered  to 
the  Father.  Let  me  direct  your  attention  to  some 
remarks  of  Trinitarian  writers  upon  this  passage. 

"  Here,"  says  Bishop  Sherlock,  (referring  to  chap, 
iv.  11,)  "  you  see  plainly  that  the  adoration  paid  to  God 
the  Father  is  founded  on  his  being  the  Creator  of  all 
things.  .  .  .  Here,  (referring  to  chap.  v.  9,  12,) 
you  as  plainly  see  the  worship  paid  to  Christ  to  be 
founded  in  this,  that  he  was  slain,  and  did  by  his  blood 
redeem  us.  .  .  .  From  all  which  is  evident  that  the 
worship  paid  to  Christ  is  founded  on  the  redemption, 
and  relates  to  that  power  and  authority  which  he 
received  from  God  at  his  resurrection." — Works,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  491  ;  Disc.  I. 

DAUBUZ  remarks:  "As  the  fundamental  reason  for 
which  God  the  Father  receiveth  worship  of  the  Jews 
2* 


18  REV.    XXII.    16. 

and  Gentiles,  is  because  he  hath  created  all  things,  and 
preserves  them  by  his  will,  to  have  it  perfected  and 
executed  on  them;  so  the  fundamental  reason  for 
which  the  Son  is  worshipped  is  because  he  was  slain, 
and  shed  his  blood  thereby  to  redeem  all  mankind/' 
Surely,  then,  if  he  is  worshipped,  because  he  was  slain, 
he  is  not  worshipped  as  the  Supreme  God. 

The  next  passage,  Rev.  xxii.  16,  I  have  seen  very 
satisfactorily  explained  in  Pitkin's  reply  to  Baker.* 

The  next  reference  is  to  Heb.  i.  8.  According  to 
my  views  already  expressed  in  regard  to  the  different 
senses  in  which  the  term  worship  may  be  used,  and  in 
regard  to  the  subordinate  worship  which  I  believe  may 
be  rendered  to  Christ — the  passage,  I  think,  admits  of 
satisfactory  explanation.  I  see  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  worship  there  spoken  of  implies  supreme  wor- 
ship, any  more  than  the  worship  or  prostration  of  the 
wise  men  from  the  east  before  the  babe  of  Bethlehem. 

Nor  do  the  next  passages  to  which  you  direct  my 
attention,  interfere,  as  I  think,  with  my  views.  In 
1  Tim.  vi.  15,  the  phrase  "  King  of  kings  and  Lord 
of  lords,"  is  applied  to  the  blessed  and  only  Poten- 
tate, the  Supreme  God ;  and  in  Rev.  xvii.  14,  the  same 
phrase  is  applied  to  the  Lamb.  But  it  by  no  means 
necessarily  follows,  that  these  two  beings  are  one  and 
the  same,  or  even  equal.  If  we  wait  "  until  the  ap- 
pearing of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  He,  "  who  is  the 
blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings  and 
Lord  of  lords,"  will  "  show"  us  how  and  why  his 
well  beloved  Son  is  also  proclaimed  "  King  of  kings 
and  Lord  of  lords;"  indeed,  I  think  he  has  plainly 
shown  it  to  us  already.  But  now  we  see  through  a 
glass  darkly ;  then,  blessed  be  our  Heavenly  Father. 

*  See  Appendix  F. 


2   COR.    XIII.    14.      JOHN   I.    1.  19 

we  shall  know  even  as  we  are  known.  For  further 
observations  in  regard  to  the  above-mentioned  passage, 
Rev.  xvii.  14,  see  Appendix  G. 

Another  of  the  passages  to  which  you  refer,  is  the 
Apostolic  benediction,  "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all."  2  Cor.  xiii.  14. 
And  in  regard  to  it  you  say,  "It  has  ever  been  among 
the  most  conclusive  to  my  mind  in  favor  of  the  doctrine, 
which,  from  its  difficulties,  you  have  been  tempted  to 
reject."  But,  my  dear  father,  it  does  not  strike  my 
mind  at  all  in  the  same  way.  If  grace  and  truth  came 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  gives  the  influences  of  his 
spirit  to  enlighten  and  sanctify  us,  it  seems  perfectly 
natural  that  the  "grace"  and  "communion"  which  is 
thus  bestowed  upon  us  by  the  Father,  should  be  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  that  "  love"  which  devised 
and  carries  on  the  scheme  of  redemption.  I  cannot 
see  how  the  mere  fact  of  their  being  named  together 
proves  anything  in  regard  to  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead.  For  further  remarks  upon  this  passage, 
quoted  from  "  Burnap's  Expository  Lectures,"  see 
Appendix  H. 

You  allude  to  John  i.  1.  "  The  Word  was  God." 
If  by  the  term  "  Word,"  Christ  was  certainly  intended, 
it  would  be  a  strong  passage  in  favor  of  your  views. 
But  that  is  a  question  which  must,  after  diligent  inves- 
tigation, be  decided  by  each  one  for  himself.  The  pas- 
sage, says  Norton,  "  has  been  misunderstood  through 
ignorance  or  disregard  to  the  opinions  or  modes  of 
conception,  which  the  writer,  St.  John,  had  in  mind." 
Some  quotations  on  this  subject  from  his  "Statement 
of  Reasons,"  will  show  you  what  has  been,  to  me,  a 
very  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  difficult  passage. 


20  JOHN   I.    1. 

'•  There  is  no  English  word,"  says  he,  "  answering  to 
the  Greek «word  Logos,  as  here  used.  It  was  employed 
to  denote  a  mode  of  conception  concerning  the  Deity, 
familiar  at  the  time  -when  St.  John  wrote,  and  inti- 
mately blended  with  the  philosophy  of  his  age,  but  long 
since  obsolete,  and  so  foreign  from  our  habits  of  think- 
ing, that  it  is  not  easy  for  us  to  conform  our  minds  to 
its  apprehension.  The  Greek  word  Logos,  in  one  of 
its  primary  senses,  answered  nearly  to  our  word  Reason. 
It  denoted  that  faculty  by  which  the  mind  disposes  its 
ideas  in  their  proper  relations  to  each  other ;  the  Dis- 
posing Power,  if  I  may  so  speak,  of  the  mind.  In 
reference  to  this  primary  sense,  it  was  applied  to  the 
Deity,  but  in  a  wider  significance.  The  Logos  of  God 
was  regarded  not  in  its  strictest  sense,  as  merely  the 
Reason  of  God ;  but  under  certain  aspects,  as  the 
Wisdom,  the  Mind,  the  Intellect  of  God.  To  this  the 
creation  of  all  things  was  especially  ascribed.  The 
conception  may  seem  obvious  in  itself;  but  the  cause 
why  the  creation  was  primarily  referred  to  the  Logos 
or  Intellect  of  God,  rather  than  to  his  goodness  or  om- 
nipotence, is  to  be  found  in  the  Platonic  philosophy,  as 
it  existed  about  the  time  of  Christ,  and  particularly  as 
taught  by  the  eminent  Jewish  philosopher,  Philo  of 
Alexandria." 

Mr.  Norton  then  goes  on  to  describe  this  philosophy, 
and  especially  the  strong  personification  of  the  Logos. 
I  wish  I  had  time  and  space  to  transcribe  the  whole 
passage,  but  must  content  myself  by  referring  you  to 
the  work  itself  from  which  these  extracts  are  taken.  It 
will  repay  an  attentive  perusal.  Mr.  Norton  continues, 
':St.  John,  writing  in  Asia  Minor,  where  many  for 
whom  he  intended  his  Gospel  were  familiar  with  the 
conception  of  the  Logos,  has  probably,  for  this  reason, 


ISA.    VI.    1 10.       JOHN    XII.    41.       JOHN   X£.    28.  21 

adopted  the  term  '  Logos'  in  the  proem  of  his  gospel, 
to  express  that  manifestation  of  God  by  Christ,  which 
is  elsewhere  referred  to  th«  Spirit  of  God."  Mr.  Nor-, 
ton's  reasons  for  this  opinion,  are,  to  my  mind,  per- 
fectly conclusive ;  you  will  find  them  in  his  "  Statement 
of  Reasons,"  pp.  229—250. 

You  allude  again,  in  a  more  particular  manner,  to 
the  passage  Isa.  vi.  1 — 10,  as  compared  with  John  xii. 
41.  You  speak  of  the  name  Jehovah,  as  applied  to 
Christ,  and  you  inquire,  "  Who,  on  such  a  comparison 
of  the  passages,  was  it,  or  could  it  be,  whose  glory,  as 
Jehovah,  the  prophet  saw?  By  what  possible  process 
can  these  texts  be  silenced?"  They  could  not  be 
silenced  if  St.  John  had  expressly  informed  us  that  the 
whole  display  of  glory  which  Isaiah  saw,  was  the  glory 
of  Christ ;  but  if  the  words,  "when  he  saw  his  glory, 
and  spake  of  him,"  refer  to  Christ,  which  some  Trini- 
tarians doubt,*  it  must  be  to  Christ's  glory  as  Messiah 
— a  glory  given  him  by  his  Father — which  Isaiah  saw 
as  a  part  of  the  vision  described  in. the  6th  chapter  of 
his  prophecy. 

In  allusion  to  John  xx.  28,  where  Thomas  says, 
"My  Lord  and  my  God,"  you  remark,  that  "  Unita- 
rians prefer  to  let  Thomas,  in  his  alleged  astonishment, 
or  fright,  fall  into  blasphemy,  rather  than  receive  his 
attestation."  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  met  with  a 
single  Unitarian  writer  who  regards  these  words  merely 
as  an  unmeaning  exclamation  of  surprise.  Norton 
says,  "  Both  titles,  (that  is,  Lord  and  God,)  I  believe, 

*  "  Avrov,  his,  refers  to  God." — J.  G.  ROSESMULLER.  "  The  pronoun  /us 
should  be  referred  to  Lord  (namely  God)  in  verse  38." — KUINOEL.  (So 
BLOOMFIELD.)  "  Two  manuscripts  and  a  few  versions  have  the  glory  of 
God,  or  of  his  God." — DB.  ADAM  CLARKE.  Concessions  of  Trinitarians, 
pp.  184,361. 


22  JOHN    XX.   28. 

were  applied  by  Thomas  to  Jesus.  But  the  name 
'God'  was  employed  by  him,  not  as  the  proper  name 
of  the  Deity,  but  as  an  appellative,  according  to  a 
common  use  of  it  in  his  day ;  or  perhaps  in  a  figurative 
sense,  as  it  sometimes  occurs  in  modern  writers."  He 
then  refers  to  several  passages  from  Young,  of  which 
the  following  is  one : — 

"  The  death  bed  of  the  just 

Is  it  his  death-bed  ?    No  ;  it  is  his  shrine  ; 
Behold  him  there  just  rising  to  a  God." 

But  all  Trinitarians*  do  not  consider  this  passage 
as  proving  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ.  KUINOEL 
says :  "  From  this  address  of  Thomas,  many  commen- 
tators are  of  opinion,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
divine  nature  may  be  established,  and  conceive  that 
the  sentence,  when  filled  up,  would  be  thus :  '  I  am 
not  faithless;  I  doubt  no  longer;  thou  art  my  Lord 
and  my  God.'  But,  on  the  contrary,  others  justly 
observe,  that  Thomas  used  the  term  God  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  applied  to  kings  and  judges,  who  were 
considered  as  representatives  of  Deity,  and  preemi- 
nently to  the  Messiah.  See  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6,  7 ;  xlv.  6,  7 ; 
ex.  1.  John  x.  35." 

ROSENMULLER  thus  explains  the  passage :  "I  ac- 
knowledge thee  as  my  Lord,  and  as  the  Messiah,  my 
King." 

MICHAELIS  says :  "I  do  not  understand  this  as  an 
address  to  Jesus ;  but  thus,  '  Yes ;  it  is  he  indeed  ! 
He,  my  Lord  and  my  God ! '  Yet,  in  giving  this  inter- 

*  I  have  been  informed  by  a  gentleman  whose  critical  attainments  cannot 
be  doubted,  and  who  is  likewise  a  Unitarian,  that  Kuinoel  and  Rosenmul- 
ler  were  neither  of  them  Trinitarians.  They  were,  he  says,  undoubtedly 
Arians.  Their  testimony,  therefore,  must  be  received  by  Trinitarians  for 
just  what,  in  their  estimation,  it  is  worth.  Michaelis,  however,  is.  I  believe, 
good  Trinitarian  authority. 


PHIL.    II.    6,    7.  23 

pretation,  I  do  not  affirm  that  Thomas  passed  all  at 
once  from  the  extreme  of  doubt  to  the  highest  degree; 
of  faith,  and  acknowledged  Christ  to  be  the  true  God. 
This  appears  to  me  too  much  for  the  then  existing 
knowledge  of  the  disciples ;  and  we  have  no  intimation 
that  they  recognized  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  before 
the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  am  therefore 
inclined  to  understand  this  expression,  which  broke  out 
from  Thomas  in  the  height  of  his  astonishment,  in  a 
figurative  sense,  denoting  only  '  whom  I  shall  ever  rev- 
erence in  the  highest  degree.'  If  he  only  recollected 
what  he  had  heard  from  the  mouth  of  Jesus  ten  days 
before,  (chapter  xiv.  9,  10,)  that  recollection  might 
have  given  occasion  to  an  expression  which  probably 
Thomas  himself  could  not  have  perfectly  explained ; 
as  is  often  the  case  with  such  words  as  escape  us  when 
we  are  under  the  most  overpowering  surprise.  But 
yet  the  expression  might  be  equivalent  to  saying,  '  He  ! 
my  Lord  !  with  whom  God  is  most  intimately  united, 
and  is  in  him !  In  whom  I  behold  God,  as  it  were, 
present  before  me.'  Or,  a  person  raised  from  the  dead 
might  be  regarded  as  a  divinity ;  for  the  word  God  is 
not  always  used  in  the  strict  doctrinal  sense."  All  the 
above  quotations  are  from  Concessions  of  Trinitarians, 
pp.  383,  384. 

Again,  you  allude  in  a  more  especial  manner  than 
before,  to  Phil.  ii.  6,  7,  and  after  requesting  me  to 
notice  the  expression,  "  took  upon  him,"  you  ask,  "  is 
not  the  him  a  being  preexistent,  to  whom  another  was 
added  by  way  of  assumption?"  I  reply,  that  that 
depends  upon  the  sense  you  give  to  the  succeeding 
words,  "form  of  a  servant," — whether  you  mean  to 
apply  it  to  his  condition,  or  to  his  essential  nature.  In 
regard  to  this  point  you  say,  "  if  the  expression  '  form 


24  PHIL.    II.    6,    7. 

of  a  servant'  means,  as  it  unquestionably  does,  a  real 
servant,  must  not  the  former  expression,  '  form  of  God,' 
imply  a  real  God?"  And  you  ask,  "what  magic  can 
undeify  Christ  here,  which  will  not,  at  the  same  time, 
and  precisely  in  the  same  way,  unhumanize  him 
also?" 

I  have  no  idea  that  either  of  those  expressions  have 
any  reference  to  a  divine  or  a  human  nature,  but 
merely,  the  one,  to  a  condition  of  majesty  and  authority, 
and  the  other,  to  a  condition  of  meanness  and  servility. 
That  this  is  also  the  opinion  of  many  Trinitarians,  I 
can  easily  prove  to  you. 

PISCATOR  says :  "  By  the  form  of  God  I  do  not 
think  that  the  Apostle  means  the  divine  nature  itself. 
....  As,  in  the  following  verse,  the  phrase  form 
of  a  servant  signifies,  not  human  nature  itself,  but  a 
servile  state  or  condition ;  so,  by  parity  of  reasoning, 
the  expression  form  of  God  denotes,  not  the  divine 
nature,  but  a  divine  state  or  condition." 

"Jesus  Christ,"  says  LE  CLERC,  "as  man,  appeared, 
in  certain  respects,  more  like  God  than  men,  inasmuch 
as  he  commanded  all  nature  with  absolute  authority, 
and  performed  unparalleled  miracles.  This  the  Apos- 
tle terms  the  form,  that  is,  the  resemblance  of  God;  a 
sense  in  which  the  same  word  is  used  in  verse  7,  and 
in  Mark  xvi.  12." 

"  Nothing,"  says  BEAUSOBRE,  "  agrees  better  with 
this  passage,  than  what  the  Evangelist  says :  '  Know- 
ing that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  his 
hands,'  (this  is  the  form  of  God,}  'he  laid  aside  his 
garments,  poured  water  into  a  basin,  took  a  towel,  and 
girded  himself,  and  began  to  wash  his  disciples'  feet' 
(this  is  the  form  of  a  slave.)  John  xiii.  3 — 5." 

WHITBY,  while  he  was  a  Trinitarian,  thus  commented 


2   PET.    HI.    18.  25 

on  this  passage  :  "  By  this  expression  most  interpreters 
do  understand,  that  the  Apostle  doth  intend  Christ  was 
essentially  and  truly  God;  but  though  this  be  a  certain 
truth,  yet  I  conceive  this  cannot  be  the  import  of  the 
expression  in  this  place."  And,  according  to  Wilson, 
PARKHURST  and  MACKMGHT  "  both  deny  that  the  form 
of  God  indicates  essence  or  nature,  and,  with  Whitby, 
interpret  the  phrase  as  referring  to  the  visible  glorious 
light  by  which  Christ  manifested  himself  .to  the  patri- 
archs."— Concessions  of  Trinitarians,  pp.  477,  478. 
See  also  again  Appendix  E,  where  the  same  opinion 
is  seen  to  have  been  expressed  by  MICHAELIS,  STORR, 
CALVIN,  HEERBRAND.  and  others, 

Again,  you  refer  me  to  2  Pet.  iii.  18.  "  To  him  be 
glory  both  now  and  forever ;"  and  you  ask,  "  Can 
glory  be  given  to  any  but  God  ?  or,  if  it  can,  can  it,  as 
to  duration,  be  given  forever  to  any  but  him?"  I 
answer,  that  I  find,  in  several  places  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, that  glory  was  expressly  given  to  Christ  by 
his  Father.  Christ  asserts  that  he  is  glorified  in  his 
followers ;  "All  mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are  mine, 
and  I  am  glorified  in  them."  He  speaks  of  the 
"  glory"  which,  says  he,  addressing  his  Father,  "  thou 
gavest  me ;"  and  in  a  prayer  for  his  disciples,  he  says, 
"that  they  may  behold  my  glory,  it-kick  tkou  hast 
given  me."  And  shall  not  I  ascribe  glory  to  him,  on 
whom  God  has  so  abundantly  bestoiced  glory?  And 
if  1  ascribe  glory  to  him  now,  why  should  I  not  do  it 
as  long  as  my  soul  exists,  which  will  be  "forever?" 
Why  should  I  not,  without  believing  him  to  be  God 
himself,  be  willing  to  say,  "  to  him  be  glory  both  now 
and  forever?" 

You  call  my  attention,  in  the  next  place,  to  Heb.  i.. 
6,  "And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him;'''  and 
3 


26  HEB.    I.  6.      COL.    I.    16,    17. 

you  inquire,  "  when  man  is  forbidden  to  worship  angels, 
as  in  Rev.  xxii.  8,  9,  can  angels  be  ordered  to  worship 
a  mere  man  ?  "  I  answer,  that  this  would  be  a  startling 
passage,  if  the  term  "  worship"  were  always  used  in 
the  Bible  in  the  same  sense,  and  to  denote  supreme 
homage.  But  that  it  is  frequently  used  in  relation  to 
subordinate  homage  or  reverence,  there  can  be  no 
.doubt.  This  passage,  then,  which,  in  itself  consid- 
ered, conveys  a  doubtful  meaning,  must  be  interpreted 
so  as  to  harmonize  with  what  is  plain  and  undoubted. 
Now  to  me  it  is  plain  that  Christ  has  revealed  himself 
as  a  being  distinct  from  and  inferior  to  his  Father,  and 
therefore  I  conclude  that  God's  "  angels"  or  messen- 
gers, were  only  commanded  to  render  him  subordinate 
worship,  or  reverence. 

In  allusion  to  Col.  i.  16,  17,  you  say,  "  even  if  we 
here  admit,  according  to  the  Unitarian  hypothesis,  that 
Christ  was  God's  agent  in  the  creation  of  the  terrestrial 
and  celestial  worlds,  they  are  said  to  be  made,  not  only 
'by  him,'  but  'for  him.'"  But  I  do  not  understand 
the  creation  here  spoken  of  to  have  any  reference  to 
the  material  worlds,  but  only  to  that  spiritual  creation, 
or  to  that  new  order  of  things  which  Christ  came  to 
introduce.  See  Letter  XXIV.  where  the  subject  is 
more  fully  discussed. 


LETTER    III, 


SCOTT  AND  WHITBY. 

MY  DEAR  FATHER: 

I  HAVE  shown  you  how,  to  my  mind,  the  passages 
you  have  mentioned  may  be  reconciled  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  subordinate  nature  of  the  Son  of  God.  My 
mother  has  requested  me  to  read  prayerfully  the  Gos- 
pel of  St.  John,  with  the  notes  and  comments  of  Dr. 
Scott,  I  have  done  so,  but  no  new  light  has  been 
introduced  into  my  mind,  and  my  sentiments  remain 
unaltered.  I  find  that  a  great  many  of  the  notes 
touching  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Messiah,  are 
accredited  to  Dr.  Whitby,  and  it  strikes  me  that  it  is 
not  quite  fair  in  Scott  to  publish  the  sentiments  of 
an  author — to  give  them  to  the  world  as  his  opinions 
— when  that  author  has  formally  and  solemnly  re- 
tracted those  very  opinions.  This  has  been  done  by 
Dr.  Whitby,  and  he  has,  in  doing  it,  made  use  of  such 
language  as  the  following:  "  Nothing,"  says  he,  "but 
the  love  of  truth  can  be  supposed  to  extort  such  a 
retraction  from  me,  who,  having  already  lived  so  long 
beyond  the  common  period  of  life,  can  have  nothing 
else  to  do  but  to  prepare  for  my  great  change ;  and,  in 
order  thereunto,  to  make  my  peace  with  God,  and  my 
own  conscience,  before  I  die.  To  this  purpose  I 
solemnly  appeal  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts,  and  call 


28  SCOTT    AND    WHITBY. 

God  to  witness,  whether  I  have  hastily,  or  rashly, 
departed  from  the  common  opinion ;  or  rather,  whe- 
ther I  have  not  deliberately  aud  calmly  weighed  the 
arguments  on  both  sides  drawn  from  Scripture  and 
antiquity."  Now  it  may  be  that  Dr.  Scott  has  some- 
where given  some  information  to  the  simple  and  un- 
learned readers  of  his  commentaries  that  the  man, 
whose  opinions  he  has  so  freely  quoted  in  regard  to  the 
Deity  of  the  Son  of  God,  afterwards  solemnly  retracted 
those  opinions  ;  if  he  has  not — and  I  have  never  been 
aware  that  he  has — then  I  say  it  is  at  least  a  cptestion 
in  my  mind  whether  the  procedure  was  perfectly  can- 
did and  honest. 

Dr.  Whitby  says :  i:  When  I  wrote  my  commentaries 
on  the  New  Testament,  I  went  on,  too  hastily  I  own, 
in  the  common  beaten  road  of  other  reputed  orthodox 
divines ;  conceiving,  first,  that  the  Father.  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  in  one  complex  notion,  were  one  and  the 
same  God,  by  virtue  of  the  same  individual  essence 

communicated  from  the  Father." '•  Then, 

as  a  natural  consequence  from  this  doctrine,  I  secondly, 
concluded  that  those  divine  persons  differed  only  in  the 
manner  of  their  existence.  That  the  difference  can  be 
only  modal,  even  Dr.  South  hath  fully  demonstrated ; 
and  that  this  was  the  opinion  generally  received  from 
the  fourth  century,  may  be  seen  in  the  close  of  my  iirst 
part  to  Dr.  Waterland."  Dr.  Whitby  then  goes  on  to 
prove  that  the  orthodox  Anti-Arian  fathers  condemned 
this  very  doctrine  as  rank  Sabellianism ;  and  this  he 
proves  from  the  words  of  Athanasius  and  Epiphanius  ; 
both  testifying,  that  to  say  the  Father  and  the  Son 
were  of  one  and  the  same  substance  was  Sabellianism. 
"  And  surely,"  he  says,  (!  to  contend  that  this  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  to  dishonor  our 


EXTRACTS    FROM  WHITBY.  29 

Church,  and  in  effect  to  charge  her  with  that  heresy 
which  was  exploded  with  scorn  by  the  whole  Church 
of  Christ  from  the  third  to  the  present  century."  And 
yet,  my  dear  father,  this  doctrine  is  what  my  catechism 
taught  me :  viz.,  "  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in 
power  and  glory." 

Dr.  Whitby  goes  on  to  prove,  from  Scripture,  and 
the  fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries,  incontestably,  as 
it  appears  to  rne,  that  the  nature  and  powers  of  Christ 
were  entirely  derived  from  the  Father.  "  The  primi- 
tive fathers,"  says  he,  "  of  the  first  three  centuries  do 
also  generally  agree  that  the  Son  received  his  power 
from  the  Father,  as  it  hath  been  observed  already. 
And  particularly  Hippolytus,  '  that  his  knowledge  was 
given  him  by  the  Father :'  to  which  the  orthodox  are 
forced  to  say  that  he  received  this  power,  this  domin- 
ion, and  these  attributes,  by  receiving  the  same  indi- 
vidual essence  with  the  Father;  which  yet  is  a  thing 
impossible  in  itself,  since  an  individual  essence  cannot 
be  communicated,-  for  that  very  reason,  because  it  is  an 
individual ;  that  it  is  one,  and  no  more." 

Again,  he  says,  that  they  who  style  themselves  or- 
thodox "  constantly  assert,  that  the  will,  power  and 
wisdom  of  the  whole  Trinity  is  one  and  the  same ;  and 
that  what  one  wills,  does,  and  knows,  they  all  will,  do, 
and  know,  by  virtue  of  this  unity  of  essence."  Again, 
"that  where  the  numerical  essence  is  one  and  the 
same,  the  will  and  actions  of  that  essence  must  be  one 
and  the  same.  And  where  the  will  and  actions  are 
numerically  distinct  and  diverse,  there  the  individual 
essence  must  also  be  distinct  and  different.  And  this 
Damascen  declares  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  holy 
Fathers.  Hence,  it  demonstratively  follows,  that,  if 
the  essence  of  the.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Gbost3  be 
3* 


30  EXTRACTS    FROM    WHITBY. 

numerically  one  and  the  same,  the  will,  and  all  the 
other  actions  of  these  three,  must  be  numerically  one 
and  the  same;  so  that,  what  the  Father  wills  and  does, 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  must  will  and  do  also." 

Now,  my  dear  father,  if  the  three  persons  in  the 
Trinity  have  one  mind  and  will,  how  could  Christ  say 
he  came  not  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that 
sent  him?  "I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will 
of  the  Father  which  sent  me."  He  was  speaking  of  a 
will  which  he  came  to  do.  and  therefore  must  have  refer- 
ence to  the  mind  and  will  which  devised  the  scheme 
of  redemption,  in  other  words,  the  divine  will,  and  this 
will,  he  says,  was  the  will  of  another.  Now,  it  has 
been  shown,  that,  according  to  the  orthodox  belief,  the 
Father  and  Son  have  the  same  'mind  and  will;  but 
Christ,  by  these  declaration's,  most  plainly  and  fully 
contradicts  the  assertion. 

On  the  question  whether  the  absolute  equality  of  the 
Son  with  the  Father,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
known  to  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  I  have  collected 
from  Whitby's  Last  Thoughts  the  following  remarks : 
"The  hypostatical  union"  was  "broached  first  by 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  by  Theodoret  pronounced  to 
be  a  thing  unknown  to  the  Fathers  that  lived  before 

him Origen  proceeds,  page  387,  to  show, 

that  among  the  multitude  of  believers,  some,  differing 
from  the  rest,  rashly  affirmed,  as  the  Noetians  did, 
that  our  Saviour  was  the  God  over  all,  which,  saith 
he,  :  we  Christians,  or,  we  of  the  church,  do  not  believe  ; 
as  giving  credit  to  the  same  Saviour  who  said,  my 
Father  is  greater  than  I.'  Arid  he  saith,  '  we  Christians 
manifestly  teach,  that  the  Son  is  not  stronger  than  the 
Father,  who  is  the  Creator  of  the  world,  but  inferior 
in  power  to  him.'  Which  words  afford  the  clearest 


THE   FATHERS    ON    THE    TRINITY.  31 

demonstration  that  the  Church  of  that  age  did  not 
believe  that  our  Saviour  was  the  Supreme  God.  Nova- 
tian  is,  if  possible,  still  more  express  in  his  interpreta- 
tion"— that  is,  of  the  text,  I  and  my  Father  are  one. 
"  For  in  answer  to  the  objection  of  the  Sabellians  from 
this  place,  he  saith,  '  that  unurti  being  here  put  in  the 
neuter  gender,  denotes  not  an  unity  of  person,  but  a 
concord  of  society  between  them ;  they  being  deservedly 
styled  one,  by  reason  of  their  concord  and  love,  and 
because,  whatsoever  the  Son  is.  he  is  from  the  Father.' 
Pampelius'  note  upon  these  words  is  this :  '  Novatian 
did  not  write  accurately  in  this  place,  as  making  no 
mention  of  the  communfon  of  the  essence  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  but  introducing  an  example  from 
the  apostle  contrary  to  it :  in  which  thing  I  doubt  not 
to  pronounce  him  erroneous,  seeing  the  Church  after- 
wards, in  divers  councils,  defined  the  contrary.'  Many 
of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  in  effect  said  the  same 
thing.  Justin  pronounces  the  Son  to  be  '  another  from 
the  Father  in  number,  but  not  in  consent.'  Because 
he  never  would  do  anything  but  what  '  the  Maker  of 
the  world,  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God,  would 
have  him  do  and  speak.'  Eusebius  pronounces  the 
Father  and  Son  to  be  one,  'not  as  to  the  essence,  but 
as  to  communion  of  glory.'  The  council  of  Antioch 
pronounced  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  to  be  "three 
in  subsistence,  but  one  only  in  consent'  or  concord. 
Novatian  says,  God  the  Father  is  '  that  one  God,  to 
whose  greatness,  majesty,  and  power,  nothing  can  be 
compared.'  And  indeed,  all  the  Greek  Fathers,  from 
Justin  to  Eusebius  inclusively,  do  frequently  inform 
us  that  the  Son  '  did  obey  the  will  of  the  Father,'  that 
he  did  '  minister  and  was  subservient  to  him,'  &c. 
&c."—  Whitby. 


32  PLINY'S  LETTER  TO  TRAJAN. 

Sir  Isaac  Newton's  opinions  in  regard  to  the  Trinity 
may  be  gathered  from  his  "  Historical  Account  of 
Two  Corruptions  of  Scripture."  In  the  number  for 
Oct  1823,  of  Sparks'  Collections,  he  says:  "Winston 
tells  us  of  his,"  Newton's,  "profound  knowledge  of 
Church  history  during  the  three  first  centuries  of  the 
Christian  era,  and  of  his  having  been  convinced  by  his 
study  of  this  history,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  introduced  into  the  Christian  scheme  many  years 
after  the  time  of  the  apostles.  The  tenor  of  Newton's 
writings  is  in  accordance  with  this  declaration,  nor 
do  they  exhibit  any  evidence,  that  their  author  ever 
believed  in  a  Trirtity.  The  'charge  against  Horsley 
of  having  suppressed  his  papers  because  they  were 
adverse  to  this  doctrine,  has  never  been  contradicted." 

You  have  mentioned  to  me,  my  dear  father,  the  fact, 
that  in  Pliny's  letter  to  Trajan,  he  testifies  that  the 
early  Christians  worshipped  Christ  as  God.  Now  that 
letter  conveys  a  very  different  impression  to  my  mind ; 
and,  it  seems  to  me,  is  very  far  from  proving  that  they 
made  our  Saviour  equal  with  God.  Bear  in  mind  that 
it  is  the  testimony  of  a  man  whose  heart  was  filled  with 
hatred  against  the  Christians  ;  so  much  so  that  he  says, 
"  it  has  been  a  question  with  me  very  problematical, 
whether  any  distinction  should  be  made  between  the 
young  and  the  old,  the  tender  and  the  robust ;  whether 
any  room  should  be  given  for  repentance.  &c."  Now 
all  that  he  testifies  is  this ; — and  remember  too  that  he 
is  only  giving  the  testimony  of  those  who  were  in  the 
act  of  retracting,  and  of  course  would  do  their  utmost 
endeavor  to  please  the  enemies  of  Christianity — "  that 
they  were  accustomed,  on  a  stated  day,  to  meet  before 
daylight,  and  to  repeat  among  themselves  a  hymn  to 
Christ,  as  to  a  God,  and  to  bind  themselves  by  an  oath, 


ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL.  33 

&c."  Bear  in  mind  also  that  the  term  worship,  (for 
though  it  is  not  used  in  Pliny's  letter,  it  is  inferred 
from  it,)  was  used  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church 
with  as  great  latitude  as  the  term  God,  and  did  no 
more  always  mean  supreme  homage  than  the  term  God 
always  meant  the  supreme  Being.  Nebuchadnezzar 
"  fell  upon  his  face  and  worshipped  Daniel,"  but  not 
as  the  supreme  God ;  and  the  eastern  sages  worshipped 
the  infant  Jesus,  but  not  as  the  supreme  Gdd.  On  the 
whole,  this  expression  in  Pliny's  letter,  on  which  so 
much  reliance  is  placed  in  all  the  ecclesiastical  histo- 
ries written  by  Trinitarians,  goes  very  far  towards 
convincing  me  that  the  early  Christians  did  not  regard 
Christ  as  equal  with  the  Father. 

I  have  a  few  remarks  to  make  in  regard  to  the  gos- 
pel of  John.  It  is  generally  supposed  that  the  apostle 
John  wrote  his  gospel  to  supply  what  had  been  omitted 
by  the  other  evangelists.  He  could  not  have  written 
it  to  prove  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord ;  that  was  a 
self-evident  truth.  Nor  could  he  have  written  it  to 
prove  his  divine  nature,  for  the  drift  and  tenor  of  the 
book  evidently  implies  an  inferiority  of  some  kind  to 
the  Father.  If  his  main  object  was  to  prove  that  he 
had  two  natures,  it  is  strange  that  he  pays  so  little 
attention  to  it.  If  that  were  his  object,  would  he  not 
as  a  man  of  common  sense,  much  more  as  a  man 
inspired  by  God,  have  so  announced  it,  that,  at  least, 
the  proposition  could  be  stated  in  his  own  words — not 
by  taking  detached  portions  of  the  book,  laying  them 
together,  and  inferring  what  his  object  was — but  by 
the  clear,  explicit,  unquestionable  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine which  he  was  writing  a  book  to  establish.  It 
appears  plain  to  me,  that  his  object  was  to  prove  the 
divinity  of  the  mission  of  his  beloved  master ;  that  he 


34  ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL. 

came  from  God  with  full  power  and  authority  to 
establish  a  new  dispensation — to  create  all  things  new. 
And  this  view  throws  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  whole 
book,  especially  upon  the  fourteen  first  verses,  which 
can  thus  be  explained  in  several  ways  without  a  resort 
to  the  perplexing  and  impossible  ideas  of  three  perfect 
beings  equal  to  one  perfect  being ;  or  of  two  incompati- 
ble natures,  with  different  perceptions,  existing  in  one 
of  those  beings.  For  it  is  only  on  this  hypothesis  that 
the  declaration  of  Christ  respecting  the  day  and  the 
hour  which  no  man  knew,  neither  the  Son — and 
several  other  declarations — can  be  explained  without 
impeaching  the  veracity  of  our  blessed  Lord,  in  whom 
was  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth. 
But  if  the  divine  and  human  will  of  our  Saviour  were 
one  and  the  same,  and  the  will  of  the  three  persons  in 
the  Trinity — of  whom  he  was  one — was  one  and  the 
same,  Christ  virtually  said,  I  seek  not  mine  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  myself,  &c.  In  fact,  just  try  to  read 
the  New  Testament,  with  this  idea,  which  grows 
naturally  out  of  Trinitariariisin,  in  the  mind,  and  you 
will  see  what  sad  confusion  it  makes.  May  the  Holy 
Spirit  guide  us  into  all  truth. 


LETTER  IV, 


CONNECTION  OP  DOCTRINES. 

MY  DEAR  FATHER  : 

I  AM  very  well  aware  that  you  speak  correctly  when 
you  say,  "  Neither  the  tenets  you  have  renounced,  nor 
those  you  have  embraced,  stand  alone."  "  They  con- 
stitute," you  remark,  "not  only  very  material  parts, 
but  perhaps  even  bases  of  systems  of  belief,  which 
diverge  farther  and  farther  from  each  other  the  more 
they  are  carried  in  detail  to  their  respective  and  very 
different  results.  '  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,' 
is  a  rule,  not  only  for  judging  persons,  but  single  tenets 
and  systems.  And  every  single  tenet,  especially  on 
the  momentous  points  your  letter  embraces,  has  and 
must  have  a  momentous  connection  with  and  influence 
upon  other  tenets.  Human  depravity,  its  origin,  nature 
and  extent ;  regeneration  and  its  constituents ;  justifica- 
tion, in  what  it  consists,  and  on  what  it  rests;  and 
indeed,  every  important  doctrine,  almost  without  excep- 
tion, will  be  materially,  if  not  fundamentally  affected. 
Until  you  have  had  time  to  contemplate  these  results,  and 
to  ascertain  their  connection,  and  the  action  and  reac- 
tion of  doctrines  upon  each  other,  will  it  not  be  better 
still  to  consider  yourself  an  inquirer,  and  still,  when 
you  have  occasion  to  speak  on  the  subject,  to  announce 
yourself  such?" 


36  ALWAYS   AN   INQUIRER. 

Before  I  proceed  to  reply  to  this  extract,  my  dear 
father,  allow  me  to  thank  you,  from  the  depths  of  an 
overflowing  heart,  for  the  tone  of  serious  mildness  and 
charity  which  characterizes  your  management  of  my 
peculiar  case.  Rest  assured,  that  every  word  and 
letter  which  comes  from  your  pen  has  infinitely  more 
weight  with  me  than  those  furious  denunciations  which 
give  evidence  of  a  zeal  that  is  not  according  to  knowl- 
edge. You  request  me  to  consider  myself  "  an  inqui- 
rer." I  do,  my  father,  consider  myself  an  inquirer; 
and  shall  always  do  so  while  I  live.  That  is  to  say, 
while  my  mind  may  be  fully  satisfied  upon  any  given 
point,  I  shall  always  be  ready  to  hear  reasons  for  a 
different  opinion,  and  to  embrace  and  proclaim  such 
an  opinion  when  those  reasons  satisfy  my  mind.  In 
the  face  of  all  the  world,  and  in  spite  of  the  charges  of 
"  instability,"  and  "  love  of  excitement,"  and  •''  love  of 
notoriety,"  which  may  be  showered  down  upon  me,  I 
shall  be  ready  to  retract  again  my  newly  embraced 
opinions,  when  I  see  them  to  be  unscriptural  and  un- 
tenable, 

I  was  in  no  special  haste  to  avow  my  change  of 
views ;  but  you  must  be  aware  that  we  cannot  always 
choose  our  times  and  seasons,  or  control  our  circum- 
stances. You  must  also  be  aware  that  the  moment  it 
became  known  to  some  of  my  friends  that  I  was  even 
examining  certain  doctrinal  points,  all  calm,  unbiassed, 
sober  investigation  was  at  an  end.  I  found  it  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  acquaint  my  friends  with  the  pro- 
gress my  mind  had  made — the  conclusions  to  which  I 
had  arrived — the  opinions  I  had  adopted — and  my 
reasons  for  those  opinions.  It  has  been  for  some  time 
a  subject  of  remark  that  I  did  not  join  in  singing  the 
doxology,  and  I  have  been  obliged  to  evade  questions, 


THE    GREAT    POINT    OF    DIFFERENCE.  61 

and  to  smile  at  exclamations,  because  the  proper  time 
for  explanation  had  not  arrived. 

You  speak  of  collateral  doctrines  and  tenets  which 
will  be  materially  affected  by  my  Unitarian  views. 
But  many  of  those  doctrines,  to  which  you  allude,  had 
passed  hi  review  before  my  mind,  and  had  become 
materially  modified  long  before  my  attention  was 
turned  to  the  great  and  distinguishing  feature  of  Uni- 
tarianism — the  absolute  unity  of  God.  It  is  a  long 
time  since  my  Calvinistic  brethren,  had  they  known 
my  views,  would  have  been  willing  to  grant  me  the 
title  of  <c  Orthodox."  But,  after  all,  the  great  question 
is,  do  I  believe  in  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
or  am  I  a  believer  in  the  absolute  unity  of  God,  and 
the  subordinate  nature  of  his  Son  ? 

It  is  now  two  months  or  more  since  my  mind  has 
been  entirely  satisfied  in  regard  to  the  one  great  point 
of  difference  between  Trinitarians  and  Unitarians,  and, 
though  it  should  require  years  of  prayerful  study  to 
arrive  at  satisfactory  conclusions  upon  other  doctrinal 
points,  I  should  all  those  years  be  still  a  Unitarian,  if  I 
continued,  as  I  now  am,  a  believer  in  the  absolute  and 
unqualified  unity  of  God.  Therefore,  when  my  friends 
seem  to  expect  me  to  wait  till  I  am  entirely  satisfied  in 
regard  to  every  point  of  doctrine,  before  I  avow  myself 
a  Unitarian,  I  answer  that  this  may  be  the  work  of  a 
lifetime,  and  does  not  at  all  affect  the  question  of  my 
being,  or  not  being,  a  Unitarian.  It  might  as  well  be 
insisted  upon  that  a  man  should  arrive  at  complete 
perfection,  before  he  calls  himself  a  Christian.  I 
know  that  there  are  great  differences  of  opinion  among 
Unitarians,  but  so  there  are  among  Trinitarians;  some 
are  high  Calvinists,  some  are  moderate  Calvinists, 
and  some  are  Arminians. 
4 


38  SOURCES    OF   INFORMATION. 

The  question  with  me,  then,  is,  do  I  believe  that 
there  are  three  persons  in  one  God,  or  do  I  believe  that 
Jehovah  is  one,  and  one  only  ?  Now  I  believe  that  he 
is  strictly  one,  and  it  seems  impossible  that  I  can  ever 
believe  otherwise,  when,  to  my  mind,  it  is  as  plain  as 
demonstration,  that  the  contrary  scheme  involves  a 
contradiction.  I  must  be  a  Unitarian,  or  a  Tritheist, 
which  last  I  cannot  be  while  I  take  the  Bible  for  my 
guide.  He  is  a  Unitarian  who  rejects  the  Trinity ; 
and  be  his  views  of  the  atonement,  of  native  depravity, 
of  human  ability,  or  inability,  what  they  may,  still  he 
is  a  Unitarian;  he  has  gone  over  to  one  of  the  two 
great  divisions  of  the  Protestant  world.  If,  therefore, 
he  is  a  Unitarian,  and  not  a  Trinitarian,  he  ought  to  be 
in  the  Unitarian,  and  not  the  Trinitarian  church. 

You  remark,  "it  is  but  too  evident  that  you  have 
had  before  you  the  entire  strength  of  one  side  of  the 
question,"  &c.  It  may  be  that  I  have ;  but  you  must 
bear  in  mind  my  declaration,  that  I  was  satisfied  in 
regard  to  the  undivided  unity  of  God  before  I  had  read 
one  single  Unitarian  work,  except  the  New  Testament ; 
which  I  now  regard  as  the  most  powerful  and  con- 
vincing Unitarian  book  in  the  world.  When  I  make 
this  declaration,  I  have  a  right  to  be  believed;  and  I 
leave  it  with  you,  who  know,  better  than  others  can 
know,  my  attachment  to  the  truth.  I  went  to  the 
Bible,  divesting  myself,  as  much  as  possible,  of  educa- 
tional prepossessions :  and  it  was  from  that  source  my 
mind  was  satisfied.  I  read  the  New  Testament  day 
and  night,  with  the  concentrated  energies  of  my  intel- 
lect, and  rose  up  from  the  perusal  a  thoroughly  con- 
vinced Unitarian. 

I  think  you  are  mistaken  also,  my  dear  father,  when 
you  assert  that  one  side,  meaning  the  Unitarian  side, 


CIRCUMSTANCES    CONSIDERED.  39 

"  has  had  immensely  and  almost  overwhelmingly  the 
advantage  of  the  other."  I  should  be  inclined  exactly 
to  reverse  the  statement.  As  I  have  before  remarked, 
1  have  always  found  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  so 
perplexing,  that  I  have  read  over  and  over  again  all 
the  arguments  I  could  find  in  its  favor,  and  no  one  but 
myself  can  know  how  I  have  struggled  to  continue  a 
Trinitarian. 

Your  letter  goes  on  to  say,  "  you  ought  also  to  con- 
sider the  influence  of  your  course  upon  others,  upon 
the  cause  of  religion,  and  upon  your  publications, 
especially  the  volume  of  poems  entitled  '  The  Parted 
Family,'  as  well  as  upon  the  feelings  and  happiness 
of  your  friends.  Not  that  any  of  these  considerations, 
nor  all  of  them,  should  suppress  or  seriously  interfere 
with  sincere  inquiries  after  truth;  but  only  with  an 
unnecessary  or  premature  declaration,  which  may 
have  a  use  made  of  it  by  others,  you  perhaps  do  not 
at  all  anticipate,  the  occurrence  of  which  you  may 
afterwards  deeply  regret,  when  it  may  be  too  late  to 

repair  it We  are  all  answerable  for  our  influence, 

and  though  that  fact  should  not  be  suffered  to  render 
us  insincere,  nor  to  suppress  needful  or  useful  inquiry, 
yet  it  should  modify,  qualify,  and  regulate  the  degree 
and  manner  of  our  disclosure  to  others  of  the  results 
to  which  we  may  have  arrived.  This  is,  perhaps,  one 
of  those  cases  in  which  he  that  believeth  should  not 
make  haste.  I  fear  that  many  may  be  driven  from  the 
Bible,  through  indifference  or  disrelish  of  its  contents, 
when  they  learn  that  you,  through  the  Bible,  have 
arrived  at  your  present  conclusions." 

Your  remarks  in  regard  to  the  importance  of  our 
influence  are  just  what  they  should  be,  and  I  trust  will 
not  be  without  their  legitimate  effect  upon  my  mind. 


40  SCOTT   AND   NEWTON. 

Yet  I  cannot  hope  that  my  friends  will  be  able  to  ap- 
preciate fully  the  force  and  peculiarity  of  the  circum- 
stances by  which  I  am  surrounded,  inasmuch  as  they 
themselves — by  their  affection  for  me,  their  zeal  for 
what  they  regard  to  be  fundamental  truth,  and  their 
opposition  to  what  they  deem  fundamental  error — 
create  those  very  circumstances.  A  crisis  has  come 
when  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  me  most  sacredly 
and  vigilantly  to  guard  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
and  conscientiously  and  fearlessly  to  avow  my  honest 
opinions.  These  remarks  are  not  called  forth,  my 
dear  father,  by  anything  which  you  have  said  or  done. 
If  all  my  friends  had  pursued  the  calm  and  consistent 
course  which  your  example  should  have  prompted,  I 
should  not  now  be  obliged  continually  to  defend  my- 
self from  charges  which  their  own  misguided  zeal  has 
brought  upon  me. 

I  wish,  my  dear  father,  before  I  bring  this  letter  to  a 
close,  to  reply  to  a  remark  of  yours  which  has  given 
me  some  pain.  "  I  deeply  regret,"  you  say,  "  to  hear 
you  speak  in  the  manner  you  have  done  of  such  men 
as  Scott  and  Newton."  And  further,  in  regard  to 
Scott,  you  say,  "  I  have  concluded  to  make  a  remark  or 
two  on  the  apparent  insincerity  of  Scott  in  not  inform- 
ing his  readers  of  Whitby's  change  of  views  when  he 
made  quotations  from  his  writings.  I  have  usually 
considered  Scott  as  so  remarkably  candid  a  writer,  that 
I  cannot  have  him  reflected  on  without  defending  him 
where  I  find  he  is  defensible.  Scott  quoted,  I  must 
presume,  just  as  any  one  would  do,  from  a  book 
containing  what  he  considered  correct  and  valuable 
sentiments.  I  presume  he  meant  neither  to  proclaim 
nor  conceal  the  system  embraced  by  Whitby,  but  to 
exhibit  his  argument,  leaving  his  readers  to  judge  of 


SCOTT   AND   NEWTON.  41 

its  collusiveness,  as  well   as  of  where  it  might  be 
found." 

If  I  have  done  Dr.  Scott  injustice,  I  am  truly  sorry 
for  it ;  I  meant  not  to  speak  disrespectfully  of  such  a 
man;  and  in  regard  to  Sir  Isaac  Newton,*  I  gave  no 
opinion  of  my  own,  but  merely  mentioned  where  his 
opinions  might  be  found,  and  then  quoted  what  Pro- 
fessor Sparks  had  said  in  regard  to  the  same  subject. 
I  will  now  say,  however,  with  all  due  modesty,  thai  it 
seems  to  me  that  no  one  can  read  his  "Historical 
Account  of  two  Corruptions  of  Scripture,"  without 
believing  him  to  have  been  a  Unitarian ;  but  different 
minds  are  differently  constituted. f 

*  Since  the  above  was  written,  it  has  occurred  to  me  that  perhaps  you 
allude  to  the  Rev.  John  Newton  ;  for  I  recollect  saying  to  you  that  I  thought 
the  influence  of  his  high  Calvinistic  views  had  operated  most  injuriously  upon 
the  sensitive  mind  of  the  unfortunate  Cowper. 

t  See  Appendix  I. 

4* 


LETTER  V. 


INVESTIGATION  NO  CRIME. 
Mr  DEAR  FATHER: 

I  AM  rejoiced  to  find  that  you  do  not,  as  some  of 
my  friends  do,  complain  of  me  for  having  presumed  to 
investigate  opinions,  when  doubts  of  their  truth  had 
found  their  way  into  my  mind.  I  was  sure  it  would 
be  so.  I  knew  too  well  the  remarkable  honesty  of 
your  mind,  to  fear,  upon  that  particular  ground \  your 
displeasure ;  and  I  am  very  much  pleased  to  find  I  did 
not  mistake  you.  In  your  letter  the  following  passage 
occurs,  and  I  thank  you  for  it  from  my  heart.  You 
say,  "  I  am,  my  daughter,  not  at  all  dissatisfied  with 
you  for  inquiring  after  Truth,  and  embracing  it  where- 
ever  you  find  it;  and  you  have  an  intellect  that  can 
distinguish  between  logic  and  sophistry."  You  then 
add,  "  But  if  such  texts  as  those  to  which  I  have 
referred  you  can  be  logically  disposed  of,  I  wish  to  see 
the  way  in  which  such  a  work  can  be  accomplished." 
Before  this  time  you  have  received  the  letter  in  which 
I  give  my  interpretation  of  those  texts. 

You  speak  of  a  remark  I  have  made  in  regard  to 
you,  as  though  you  feared  it  might  be  misunderstood  ; 
and  that  some  persons  might  think  it  argued  an  indif- 
ference, on  your  part,  in  regard  to  matters  which  1 


NOBLE    SENTIMENTS.  43 

know  you  deem  of  vital  importance.  But  I  will  let 
you  speak  for  yourself.  "  You  have  made  an  observa- 
tion," you  say,  "  something  like  this,  that  I  was  not 
affected,  as  all  your  other  relatives  are,  in  view  of  the 
disclosures  you  have  made  concerning  what  is  passing 
in  your  mind.  This  is  true,  however,  I  think,  only  in 
one  particular.  Perhaps  all  the  rest  are  regretting  that 
you  are  pursuing  your  present  course  of  inquiry — that 
you  are  examining  subjects,  and  reading  books,  with 
which  they  might  prefer  you  should  not  meddle — into 
which  they  had  rather  you  would  not  look.  So  far  as 
this  single  particular  is  concerned,  I  do  not  feel  thus. 
I  am  quite  willing  you  should  inquire  after  Truth,  and 
embrace  it  wherever  you  may  find  it,  though  it  coun- 
teract the  whole  current  of  your  former  thoughts,  and 
overturn  the  whole  fabric  of  your  former  views.  I 
would  hope  you  have  a  mind  capable  of  distinguishing 
truth  from  falsehood,  and  argument  from  sophistry, 
and  I  hope  that  you  have  a  candor  and  impartiality 
that  will  suffice  to  secure  you  from  the  wiles  and  fas- 
cinations of  error,  and  an  experience  of  grace  in  the 
heart  that  will  preserve  you  from  going  far,  and  long, 
and  fatally  astray."  These  are  noble  views  and  sen- 
timents, my  father,  worthy  of  a  man,  worthy  of  a  Chris- 
tian, worthy  of  you,  and  of  your  honest  and  noble 
soul.  Such  sentiments  must  secure  the  approbation  of 
every  candid  and  conscientious  mind. 

I  wish  I  could  convince  my  relatives  and  friends, 
arid  yourself  in  particular,  that  I  have  not  been  entirely 
unmindful  of  that  caution  which  it  is  so  important  at 
all  times  to  observe,  but  most  especially  when  we  are 
about  to  take  a  momentous  step,  and  to  assume  a  new 
position.  I  will,  however,  bear  witness  to  the  fact 
that  you  have  again  and  again,  in  the  most  solemn 


44  PATERNAL    FAITHFULNESS. 

and  urgent  manner,  lifted  up  your  kindly  warning 
voice,  and  advised  continually  the  most  cautious  delib- 
eration. At  the  risk  of  placing  myself  in  an  unamia- 
ble  light  before  the  public, — for  I  cannot  and  will  not 
explain  all  the  peculiar  circumstances  which  have 
rendered  necessary  what  has  seemed  to  be  a  premature 
disclosure  of  my  change  of  views, — at  the  risk,  I 
repeat,  of  placing  myself  in  an  unamiable  attitude,  I 
will  do  all  I  can  to  exonerate  you,  my  dear  father, 
from  the  smallest  share  of  blame  in  this  matter ;  and  I 
hereby  declare  that  you  have  done  all  that  paternal 
faithfulness  could  do,  to  hold  me  back  from  what  you 
conceived  to  be  the  brink  of  a  dangerous  precipice. 
No  one  can  read  what  you  have  written  to  me  on  this 
subject,  without  feeling  and  acknowledging  that  you 
have  done  your  duty  faithfully  as  a  Christian  parent, 
and  a  Christian  minister.  But,  to  make  the  point  still 
more  sure,  I  will  here  quote  from  your  letters  some  of 
the  warnings  of  which  I  have  spoken. 

In  speaking  of  my  present  position,  you  say: — "It 
is  a  slippery  road,  and  you  will  need  to  tread  it  with 
great  care,  caution,  and  prayer,  or,  ere  you  are  aware, 
you  may  find  yourself  at  an  awful  remove  from  the 
ark  of  safety.  I  feel  no  disposition  to  discourage  you 
from  a  simple,  sincere,  and  prayerful  inquiry  after 
Truth,  but  do  not  be  too  rapid  in  its  discovery,  espe- 
cially not  too  rapid  in  announcing  or  acting  upon 
your  discoveries.  Recollect,  these  views  are  new,  and 
much  of  their  interest  may  arise  from  their  novelty." 
In  another  place  you  say : — "I  would  guard  your 
imaginative  mind  and  buoyant  feelings  against  the  dan- 
gers that  may  arise  from  the  relief  and  happiness  you 
have  spoken  of,  in  connection  with  the  new  views 
which  have  entered  into  your  mind.  Do  not  infer  that 


CAUTION    RECOMMENDED.  45 

you  are  certainly  right,  merely  from  that  circumstance. 
I  want  you  to  have  a  cheerful  religion,  provided  it  is 
at  the  same  time  a  safe  and  sound  one."  Again,  you 
write : — "  I  wish  you  to  practise  no  disguise  nor  insin- 
cerity. But  I  renew  my  urgent  advice  to  you,  on  your 
account  as  well  as  on  ours,  not  to  be  in  haste.  If 
your  new  apprehensions  are  well  founded,  nothing 
will  be  lost  by  deliberation, — by  taking  time  to  '  prove 
all  things,'  that  you  may  'hold  fast'  only  to  'that 
which  is  good.'" 

This  is  excellent  advice,  my  dear  father,  and  most 
gladly  would  I  have  satisfied  my  friends  in  regard  to 
the  time  when  my  change  of  views  should  be  made 
known.  Indeed,  I  did  not  expect,  formally,  to  make 
them  known  at  all.  I  did  not  consider  myself  of  con- 
sequence enough  to  render  such  a  course  necessary. 
If  the  "orthodox"  community  would  have  suffered 
me  quietly  to  follow  the  dictates  of  my  conscience, 
they  should  never  have  heard  a  word  from  me  in  re- 
gard to  myself  and  my  concerns.  But  strangers  and 
friends  have  been  pleased  to  interest  themselves  most 
extensively  and  diligently  in  my  case,  and  it  is  their 
fault,  and  not  mine,  that  any  publicity  at  all  has  been 
given  to  the  matter.  I  have  had  no  choice  given  me. 
I  have  been  the  victim  of  uncontrollable  circumstances. 
The  time  came  when  I  was  obliged  to  make  known,  to 
my  relatives  at  least,  the  process  through  which  my 
mind  was  passing.  And  I  have  been  blamed  for  not 
making  it  known,  at  least  to  you,  before.  I  have  been 
charged  with  showing  disrespect  to  you,  my  father, 
because  I  did  not  from  the  first  reveal  to  you  the 
doubts  which  had  entered  my  mind.  Such  a  charge 
wrings  my  heart,  and  pains  me  more  than  I  can  ex- 
press. Perhaps  my  silence  was  an  error  of  judgment, 


46  REVIEW    OF   CIRCUMSTANCES. 

it  certainly  was  not  one  of  intention.  If  I  have  done 
wrong  in  this  thing,  I  ask  your  forgiveness,  and  I  pray 
also  for  the  forgiveness  of  my  Heavenly  Father. 

If  I  could  have  confided  my  case  to  you  alone,  as 
perhaps  I  ought  to  have  done,  God  knows  how  joy- 
fully I  would  have  done  it,  and  how  much  it  would 
have  lessened  the  fearful  weight  of  responsibility  which 
oppressed  me  when  I  was  groping  my  way  alone.  But 
1  was,  and  still  am,  under  the  impression  that  it  was 
best  for  me  to  study  the  New  Testament  in  the  soli- 
tude of  my  chamber;  and  before  I  had  got  entirely 
through  the  Gospel  of  John,  I  found  myself,  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  Christ,  firmly  on  Unitarian  ground. 
Then,  after  a  good  deal  of  thought,  I  sat  down,  and 
wrote  the  letter  announcing  to  my  mother  and  your- 
self my  change  of  views,  intending  to  hand  it  to  you 
at  the  first  suitable  opportunity.  That  opportunity  was 
not  long  in  presenting  itself.  The  fact  soon  became 
known  to  most  of  my  relatives,  but  there  were  some 
circumstances  which  had  caused  such  a  fact  to  be  sus- 
pected for  some  time.  One  of  these  was  my  silence  for 
several  Sabbaths  during  the  singing  of  the  doxology, 
which,  as  I  was  a  prominent  member  of  the  choir, 
could  not  but  be  observed.  As  soon  as  my  change  of 
sentiments  became  known,  a  storm  arose,  and  burst 
upon  my  head,  such  as  I  have  never  before  experi- 
enced, and  hope  never  to  experience  again ;  and  it 
immediately  became  necessary  for  me  to  act  with 
decision  and  independence,  or  lose  what  I  prize  above 
all  other  things,  my  own  self-respect,  and  the  approba- 
tion of  my  conscience.  This  is  but  a  glance  at  the 
state  of  things  which  has  rendered  it  necessary  for  me 
to  take  a  decided  stand,  and  assert  those  natural  rights 
which  belong  to  every  individual,  and  which  it  is  the 


EXHIBITION   OF    CONSEQUENCES.  47 

sacred  duty  of  every  one  jealously  and  vigilantly  to 
protect.  There  are  other  circumstances  connected  with 
this  subject,  which,  as  I  have  said  before,  1  will  not 
name. 

Not  only,  my  dear  father,  have  you  urged  me  to 
practise  caution,  but  you  have  faithfully  portrayed  the 
responsibility  of  my  position,  and  the  consequences 
which  may  result  from  my  change  of  views.  On  this 
point  you  thus  write : — "  The  views  you  have  for- 
merly expressed,  the  course  you  have  pursued,  the 
reputation  you  have  acquired  by  your  publications, 
the  position  you  have  occupied,  and  do  occupy  in  this 
community,  and  your  relation  to  myself,  whose  posi- 
tion for  upwards  of  twenty  years  was  still  more  prom- 
inent, place  you  in  circumstances  of  weighty  and  pecu- 
liar responsibility."  Again,  after  speaking  of  the 
"  spirit  that  lives  and  breathes — that  burns  and  glows" 
in  the  volume  of  poems  from  my  pen,  called  "  The 
Parted  Family,"  you  ask,  "  Are  you  aware  that  an 
entire  change  in  the  current  of  your  thoughts  and  feel- 
ings may  be  the  result  of  the  new  tide  that  has  begun 
to  set  in  upon  them  ?  Have  you  renounced,  or  do  you 
think  of  renouncing  the  sentiments  and  exercises  that 
run  through  the  interesting  volume  from  your  pen  that 
has  carried  rich  consolation  to  so  many  hearts?" 

To  these  questions  I  answer,  that  I  am  by  no  means 
prepared  to  renounce  "  the  sentiments  and  exercises  "* 
which  that  volume  contains.  I  have  not  renounced 
my  confidence  in  God,  nor  in  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ. 
The  words  of  consolation  which  fell  from  my  Master's 

*  If  any  one  thinks  that  in  consequence  of  becoming  a  Unitarian,  the 
"  sentiments  and  exercises"  of  the  Christian  heart  must  be  renounced,  I  ask 
him  to  read  candidly  and  carefully  the  Sermons  of  Consolation,  by  Dr. 
Greenwood,  and  he  will  see  in  what  way  and  to  what  extent  Unitarian 
Christians  are  comforted  by  their  religious  faith. 


48  EXHIBITION   OF   CONSEQUENCES. 

lips  are  as  precious  to  me  as  ever,  and  would,  I  am 
confident,  prove  now,  as  they  did  then,  amply  suffi- 
cient to  bear  me  triumphantly  through  any  scene  of 
sorrow  through  which  I  might  be  called  to  pass. 

I  will  now  bring  this  letter  to  a  close,  hoping  and 
believing  that  what  I  have  recorded  here  will  abun- 
dantly prove  to  all  who  may  peruse  these  pages,  that 
nothing  on  your  part  has  been  left  undone  to  deter  me 
from  pursuing  the  path  which  you  deem  a  wrong  and 
a  dangerous  one. 


•tfbvwn 


• 

LETTER   VI. 


REMARKS  UPON  HONESTY. 
MY  DEAR  FATHER: 

You  speak  like  yourself,  and  like  an  honest  man, 
who  is  "the  noblest  work  of  God,"  when  you  say, 
"  I  vastly  prefer  an  honest  Unitarian,  who  is  so  from 
conviction,  however  mistaken  and  even  dangerous  I 
may  regard  his  sentiment,  to  men  of  pretended  and 
even  boasted  orthodoxy,  who  hesitate  not  at  prevari- 
cation, and  even  direct  falsehood."  And  yet,  dear 
father,  it  almost  seems  to  me,  that  in  your  anxiety  lest 
I  should  go  too  far  easily  to  retrace  my  steps,  even  if  I 
wished  to  do  so,  you  are  advising  me  to  a  course, 
which,  under  other  circumstances,  you  would  not  con- 
sider exactly  open  or  honest.  Let  me  quote  your 
words.  In  reference  to  the  metrical  doxologies  you 
ask,  "  Is  there  no  sense,  no  consistent  and  proper  sense, 
in  which  you  can  say  or  even  sing  'three  in  one?' 
Must  you  necessarily  carry  in  your  mind  the  idea  of 
three  objects  of  worship?"  In  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions I  will  reply  that  there  is  a  sense,  in  which  I 
believe  in  a  Trinity.  I  believe  that  the  Father  mani- 
fests himself  to  the  world  through  the  Son,  and  oper- 
ates upon  the  hearts  of  men  by  the  agency  of  his  Holy 
Spirit.  In  this  sense  I  can  say  "  three  in  one."  But 
this  is  not  exactly  to  the  point.  I  cannot  sing  the  dox- 
5 


50  THE    TRINITARIAN    DOXOLOGY. 

ology  because  it  distinctly  represents  these  three  as  one 
in  another  sense — as  three  persons  in  one  God — each 
as  God,  and  the  three  as  one  God.  The  singing  of  the 
Trinitarian  doxology  is  the  distinguishing  mark  of  a 
Trinitarian  Church — a  concise  and  regularly  repeated 
confession  of  faith — the  Shibboleth  of  Trinitarianism. 
Until  it  shall  he  generally  known  that  I  am  a  Unita- 
rian, and  that  when  I  sing  the  doxology  I  give  to  it  a 
Unitarian  construction,  I  see  no  possible  way  in  which 
I  can  honestly  use  it.  You  have  taught  me,  my 
father,  to  be  honest  and  independent.  It  is  from  you 
that  I  have  learned  with  Christian  boldness  to  assert 
and  defend  what  I  believe  to  be  the  truth,  and  I  know 
you  would  not  have  me  act  otherwise.  In  endeavor- 
ing to  persuade  me  that  1  can  still  sing  the  doxology, 
your  only  object  is  to  deter  me  from  exciting  general 
remark  by  ceasing  now  to  do  what  I  have  always 
hitherto  done;  but  I  cannot  conscientiously  do  if,  and 
I  know  that  you  would  not  wish  me  to  silence  the 
clamors,  or  even  the  whispers  of  conscience.  You 
would  be  gratified,  I  have  no  doubt,  and  so  would  I,  if 
I  could  perfectly  agree  with  you  in  s«ntiment ;  but  as 
long  as  I  cannot  do  so,  I  know  you  would  prefer  that 
I  should  be  honest,  and  say  so.  "  God's  truths,"  as  you 
so  sweetly  and  so  truly  say,  "  whatever  on  examina- 
tion they  may  be  found  to  be,  are  '  the  same  yesterday, 
to-day,  and  forever ;'  whatever  may  be  the  contradic- 
tions, inconsistencies,  and  even  the  immoralities  of 
those  who  profess  to  embrace  them.  To  the  law  and 
to  the  testimony  we  must  continually  resort,  saying, 
speak  Lord,  for  thy  servant  heareth."  Yes,  my  dear 
father,  that  is  the  true  Christian  spirit,  a  spirit  of  filial 
reverence  for  God  and  for  his  word;  and  if  I  ever 
hereafter  discover  that  I  have  mistaken  the  teachings 


THE    UNITARIAN    HYMN-BOOK.  51 

of  that  word,  I  again  honestly  declare  that  no  worldly 
reproach,  no  bitter  taunts,  no  charges  of  instability  or 
love  of  notoriety,  will  deter  me  from  confessing  my 
mistakes  and  errors,  and  acknowledging  what  I  believe 
to  be  truth.  If  I  can  find  hereafter  that  in  giving 
up  the  faith  of  my  fathers,  I  have  gone  astray,  in  the 
face  of  an  assembled,  mocking,  jeering  world,  I  should 
not  hesitate  to  retrace  my  steps.* 

But  1  will  introduce  another  subject.  You  appear 
to  feel  exceedingly  dissatisfied  with  the  alterations 
which  have  been  made  by  Unitarians  in  the  psalms 
and  hymns  of  Dr.  Watts.  "  There  are  several  impor- 
tant topics,"  you  remark,  upon  which  the  hymn-book 
you  have  examined,  "is  deplorably  deficient."  And 
you  add,  that  "in  several  instances  they  have  so 
altered  Watts,  as  to  have  weeded  out  portions  and 
sentiments  which  he  regarded  as  among  the  most  vital 
and  valuable.  Unless,"  you  observe,  "since  he  ex- 
changed earth  for  heaven,  he  has  greatly  altered  opin- 
ions familiar  and  precious  to  him  in  this  world,  I  am 
inclined  to  think  that,  could  he  now  rise  from  his 
bed  of  dust,  he  would  loudly  complain  of  and  protest 
against  the  use  they  have  made  of  the  pruning  knife." 

It  is  asserted,  my  dear  father,  that  before  "he  ex- 
changed earth  for  heaven"  he  had  materially  altered 
opinions  once  "familiar  and  precious  to  him."  The 
proof  upon  this  subject,  I  have  found  in  a  condensed 
form  in  Sparks'  Inquiry,  and  shall  quote  at  large  what 
he  says  upon  the  subject.  I  leave  it  to  your  candor  to 
decide  with  how  much  truth  the  assertion  is  made; 
and  if  it  can  be  proved  to  your  satisfaction  that  Watts 
was  himself  desirous  of  making  alterations  in  his 
nymns,  you  will  not  be  so  apt  to  find  fault  with  those 

*  See  Appendix  K. 


02  DR.    WATTS    A    UNITARIAN. 

who  have  done  it  for  him.  The  quotation  from  Pro- 
fessor Sparks  is  as  follows : 

"  A  letter  is  extant  which  was  written  by  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Merivale  to  Dr.  Priestley,  in  which  the  senti- 
ments of  Dr.  Lardner  on  the  subject  of  Watts'  opin- 
ions are  expressed  in  the  most  unequivocal  terms.  In 
conversation  with  Mr.  Merivale,  as  stated  in  the  letter, 
this  great  man  observed:  'I  think  Dr.  Watts  never 
was  an  Arian,  to  his  honor  be  it  spoken.  When  he 
first  wrote  of  the  Trinity,  I  reckon  he  believed  three 
equal  divine  persons.  But  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life, 
and  before  he  was  seized  with  an  imbecility  of  his 
faculties,  he  was  a  Unitarian.  How  he  came  to  be 
so,  I  cannot  certainly  say ;  but  I  think  it  was  the  result 
of  his  own  meditations  on  the  Scripture.  He  was  very 
desirous  to  promote  that  opinion,  and  wrote  a  great 
deal  upon  the  subject.' 

"After  this  conversation,  Mr.  Merivale,  wishing  to 
obtain  further  information  respecting  Watts'  unpub- 
lished papers,  wrote  a  letter  of  inquiry  to  Dr.  Lardner, 
from  whom  he  received  the  following  reply : — 

" 'I  question  whether  you  have  anywhere  in  print 
Dr.  \Vatts'  last  thoughts  upon  the  Trinity.  They  were 
known  to  very  few.  My  nephew,  Neal,  an  under- 
standing gentleman,  was  intimate  with  Dr.  Watts,  and 
often  with  the  family  where  he  lived.  Sometimes  in 
an  evening,  when  they  were  alone,  he  would  talk  to 
his  friends  in  the  family  of  his  new  thoughts  concern- 
ing the*  person  of  Christ,  and  their  great  importance ; 
and  that,  if  he  should  be  able  to  recommend  them  to 
the  world,  it  would  be  the  most  considerable  thing  that 
ever  he  performed.  My  nephew,  therefore,  came  to  me 
and  told  me  of  it,  and  that  the  family  was  greatly  con- 
cerned to  hear  him  talk  so  much  of  the  importance  of 


DR.    WATTS   A    UNITARIAN.  53 

these  sentiments.  I  told  my  nephew,  that  Dr.  Watts 
was  right  in  saying  they  were  important,  but  I  was 
of  opinion  that  he  was  unable  to  recommend  them  to 
the  public,  because  he  had  never  been  used  to  a  proper 
way  of  reasoning  upon  such  a  subject.  So  it  proved. 
My  nephew  being  executor,  had  the  papers,  and  showed 
me  some  of  them.  Dr.  Watts  had  written  a  good  deal, 
but  they  were  not  fit  to  be  published.  Dr.  Watts' 
Last  Thoughts  were  COMPLETELY  UNITARIAN.'* 

"These facts,"  continues  Professor  Sparks,  "are  too 
plain  and  conclusive  to  need  comment.  They  rest  on 
the  authority  of  Lardner,  and  they  could  not  rest  on  a 
higher.  He  barely  stated  what  he  saw  and  knew. 
Prove  Lardner  to  have  been  guilty  of  a  deliberate 
falsehood,  or  mistaken  in  a  case  where  he  had  every 
possible  opportunity  of  knowing  the  truth,  and  you 
will  invalidate  his  testimony.  Till  this  be  done,  no 
one  can  rightfully  refuse  his  assent  to  the  position  it 
establishes ;  which  is,  that  the  unpublished  papers  of 
Watts  clearly  showed  him  to  have  been  a  Unitarian. 

"  But  we  need  not  recur  to  unpublished  writings. 
Enough  may  be  found  in  print  to  convince  us  that  he 
was  not  a  Trinitarian,  whatever  else  he  may  have 
been.  In  his  Solemn  Address  to  the  Deity  he  speaks 
as  follows :  '  Dear  arid  blessed  God,  hadst  thou  been 
pleased,  in  any  one  plain  Scripture,  to  have  informed 
me  which  of  the  different  opinions  about  the  holy 
trinity,  among  the  contending  parties  of  Christians, 
had  been  true,  thou  knowest  with  how  much  zeal, 
satisfaction  and  joy.  my  unbiassed  heart  would  have 
opened  itself  to  receive  and  em  brace  the  divine  discovery. 
Hadst  thou  told  me  plainly,  in  any  single  text,  that  the 

*  See  the  whole  of  Mr.  Merivale's  letter  in  Belsham's  Memoirs  of  Lindsey, 
p.  216. 

5* 


54  DR.    WATTS   A    UNITARIAN.' 

Father,  Son.  and  Holy  Spirit,  are  three  real  distinct 
persons  in  the  divine  nature,  I  had  never  suffered  my- 
self to  be  bewildered  in  so  many  doubts,  nor  embar- 
rassed with  so  many  strong  fears  of  assenting  to  the 
mere  inventions  of  men,  instead  of  divine  doctrine ;  but 
I  should  have  humbly  and  immediately  accepted  thy 
words,  so  far  as  it  was  possible  for  me  to  understand 
them,  as  the  only  rule  of  my  faith.  Or  hadst  thou 
been  pleased  to  express  and  include  this  proposition  in 
the  several  scattered  parts  of  thy  book,  from  whence 
my  reason  and  conscience  might  with  ease  find  out, 
and  with  certainty  infer  this  doctrine,  I  should  have 
joyfully  employed  all  my  reasoning  powers,  with  their 
utmost  skill  and  activity,  to  have  found  out  this  infer- 
ence, and  engrafted  it  into  my  soul. 

"  *  But  how  can  such  weak  creatures  ever  take  in  so 
strange,  so  difficult,  and  so  abstruse  a  doctrine  as  this, 
in  the  explication  and  defence  whereof,  multitudes  of 
men,  even  men  of  learning  and  piety,  have  lost  them- 
selves in  infinite  subtleties  of  disputes,  and  endless 
mazes  of  darkness.  And  can  this  strange  and  perplex- 
ing notion  of  three  real  persons  going  to  make  tip  one 
true  God,  be  so  necessary  and  so  important  a  part  of 
that  Christian  doctrine,  which,  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  is  represented  as  so  plain  and  so  easy, 
even  to  the  meanest  understanding  1 ' 

"Three  things,"  observes  Mr.  Sparks,  "are  obvious 
from  these  extracts.  First,  that  Watts  did  not  believe 
the  Trinity,  as  usually  understood,  to  be  '  plainly 
taught  in  any  single  text ;'  secondly,  that  in  his  mind  it 
was  not  so  expressed  in  the  Scriptures  at  large,  as  to 
be  intelligible  to  '  reason  and  conscience ;'  and  thirdly, 
that  the  '  strange  and  perplexing  notion  of  three  real 
persons  going  to  make  up  one  true  God,'  is  not  a 


DR.    WATTS    A    UNITARIAN.  55 

'necessary  and  important  part  of  the  Christian  doc- 
trine,' whatever  may  be  thought  of  its  reality.  Is 
there  a  Trinitarian  of  the  present  day,  who  will  assent 
to  either  of  these  propositions  ?" 

Mr.  Sparks  goes  on  to  give  extracts  from  Dr.  Watts' 
own  writings,  which,  I  think,  fully  prove  him  to  have 
been  a  Unitarian  when  he  wrote  them,  and  they  were 
written  long  after  his  psalms  and  hymns.  The  ex- 
tracts are  too  long  to  be  inserted  here,  but  if  you  are 
curious  upon  the  subject,  you  can  consult  the  work  of 
Professor  Sparks,  called  An  Inquiry  into  the  compara- 
tive moral  tendency  of  Trinitarian  and  Unitarian  Doc- 
trines;  and  in  the  chapter  entitled  Sentiments  and 
Morals  of  English  Unitarians,  you  will  find  all  that 
he  says  in  regard  to  Dr.  Watts  and  others.  But  I 
intend,  though  I  cannot  quote  the  whole,  still  to  give 
some  further  extracts. 

"We  have  yet  a  testimony,"  says  Sparks,  "from 
Dr.  Watts'  own  mouth.  In  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Colman  of  Boston,  written  in  1747,  he  speaks  as  fol- 
lows :  •  I  am  glad  my  book  of  Useful  Questions  came 
safe  to  your  hand.  I  think  I  have  said  every  thing 
concerning  the  Son  of  God,  which  Scripture  says ;  but 
I  could  not  go  so  far  as  to  say,  with  some  of  our  ortho- 
dox divines,  that  the  Son  is  equal  with  the  Father ; 
because  our  Lord  himself  expressly  says,  The  Father 
is  greater  than  I.'*  Shall  we  still  persist,"  inquires 
Mr.  Sparks,  with  good  reason,  "Shall  we  still  persist, 
that  Dr.  Watts  was  a  Trinitarian,  and  that  when  he 
said  the  Father  and  Son  are  not  equal,  he  meant 
directly  the  contrary  ?" 

We  now  come-  to  the  subject  of  Dr.  Watts'  Psalms 

*  Memoirs  of  Dr.  Watts,  Appendix,  p.  19.    The  original  of  this  letter  I 
believe  is  retained  among  the  files  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 


56  WATTS'  PSALMS  AND  HYMNS. 

and  Hymns.  In  regard  to  these,  Mr.  Sparks  says: 
"They  certainly  contain  sufficient  evidence  that  he 
was  a  Trinitarian  when  he  wrote  them,  but  we  know 
his  mind  was  not  stationary,  for  he  afterwards  'thanked 
God,,  that  he  had  learned  to  retract  his  former  senti- 
ments, and  change  them,  when,  upon  stricter  search 
and  review,  they  appeared  less  agreeable  to  the  divine 
standard  of  faith.'  Now  we  have  already  seen,  that 
this  was  the  case  in  regard  to  the  Trinity;  and  you  are 
doubtless  not  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  he  was  desirous 
long  before  his  death  of  suppressing  or  altering  parts 
of  his  Psalms  and  Hymns,  but  was  prevented  by  cir- 
cumstances wholly  beyond  his  control." 

"  Mr.  Tompkins  had  very  freely  pointed  out  to  him 
the  impropriety  of  sanctioning  with  his  name  doxolo- 
gies  to  the  Trinity,  and  especially  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
since  he  had  declared  his  belief,  that  the  Spirit  was  not 
a  separate  being,  and  that  such  ascriptions  of  praise 
were  not  authorized  in  Scripture.  In  reply,  Dr.  Watts 
writes :  '  I  freely  answer,  I  wish  some  things  were 
corrected.  But  the  question  with  me  is  this.  As  I 
wrote  them  in  sincerity  at  that  time,  is  it  not  more  for 
the  edification  of  Christians,  and  the  glory  of  God,  to 
let  them  stand,  than  to  ruin  the  usefulness  of  the  whole 
book,  by  correcting  them  now,  and  perhaps  bring  fur- 
ther and  false  suspicions  on  my  present  opinions? 
Besides,  I  might  tell  you,  that  of  all  the  books  I  have 
written,  that  particular  copy  is  not  mine.  I  sold  it  for 
a  trifle  to  Mr.  Lawrence  nearly  thirty  years  ago,  and 
his  posterity  make  money  of  it  to  this  very  day,  and  I 
can  scarce  claim  a  right  to  make  any  alteration  in  the 
book,  which  would  injure  the  sale  of  it.'*  And  again, 
he  replied  to  Mr.  Grove,  who  suggested  alterations, 

*  Memoirs  of  Dr.  Watts,  Appendix,  p.  144  ;  as  quoted  from  Palmer. 


WATTS'  PSALMS  AND  HYMNS.  57 

that  *  he  should  be  glad  to  do  it,  but  it  was  out  of  his 
power,  for  he  had  parted  with  the  copy,  and  the  book- 
seller would  not  suffer  any  such  alterations.'  These 
testimonies  are  enough  to  show  why  Watts  should 
desist  from  an  attempt  to  make  such  alterations,  as  his 
change  of  sentiments  would  seem  to  require.  At  least 
they  are  such  reasons  as  he  thought  satisfactory." 

But,  my  dear  father,  they  would  not,  the  first  of 
them  at  least,  satisfy  me,  nor,  unless  I  am  much  mis- 
taken in  my  views  of  your  character,  would  it  satisfy 
you.  It  is  about  upon  a  par  with  the  reason  given  by 
some  of  my  friends  why  I  should  conceal  my  present 
opinions;  namely,  because  the  knowledge  of  such  a 
change  of  sentiment  would  undo  all  the  good  which, 
by  the  blessing  of  God,  I  have  ever  been  able  to  do  by 
my  writings.  It  sounds  very  much  like  advising  me 
to  do  evil  that  good  may  come. 

But  to  return.  "It  is  evident  through  the  whole," 
says  Sparks,  "that  Watts  was  searching  for  the  best 
reasons  to  quiet  his  mind  in  a  case  of  necessity.  To 
alter  his  hymns  was  out  of  his  power;  he  regretted 
this  misfortune,  but  as  it  was  not  to  be  remedied,  he 
was  willing  to  contemplate  it  in  its  most  favorable 
aspect.  The  main  thing  to  our  present  purpose  isx 
that  he  acknowledged  a  desire  to  make  alterations,  and 
never  in  any  shape  defended  the  Trinitarian  parts  of 
his  hymns.  In  fact,  had  he  believed  in  these  parts, 
the  discussion  could  not  have  commenced." 


LETTER  VII. 


AN  EXPLANATION. 
MY  DEAR  FATHER: 

IN  your  last  communication  you  say :  "  Though 
somewhat  doubtful,  after  your  annunciation  that  you 
had  settled  two  months  ago  the  matter,  which  I  sup- 
posed might  still  be  in  some  degree  in  question,  whether 
1  had  better  resume  my  pen,  I  have  notwithstanding 
done  so,  that  I  may  have  the  satisfaction  hereafter  that 
will  arise  from  the  reflection  of  having  done  all  in  my 
power,  not  so  much  to  influence  and  control  your 
decisions,  as  to  aid  and  direct  your  inquiries." 

I  did  not  mean,  my  dear  father,  to  express  myself 
with  arrogant  confidence;  I  was  merely  giving  a  rea- 
son why  I  called  myself  a  Unitarian.  I  intended  it  as 
a  reply  to  what  you  had  said  in  regard  to  collateral 
doctrines;  and  I  was  endeavoring  to  establish  the 
point,  which  was  clear  to  my  own  mind,  namely,  that, 
whatever  might  be  my  views  upon  other  topics,  while 
I  believed  in  the  absolute  and  unqualified  unity  of  God, 
I  was  certainly  a  Unitarian;  and  (his  point,  I  informed 
you,  had  been  settled,  in  my  oim  mind,  for  the  space 
of  two  months  or  more.  I  am  not  so  settled  in  any 
opinion,  that  I  am  not  willing  to  hear  and  candidly  to 


EARLY    OPINIONS.  59 

weigh  any  arguments  which  may  be  presented  for  a 
different  belief. 

You  say,  "it  is  but  too  evident  that  you  have  had 
before  you  the  entire  strength  of  one  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, the  ablest  productions  of  the  most  powerful  minds 
Avhich  have  been  embarked  in  this  discussion.  So  far, 
at  least,  as  human  authors  have  been  your  resource, 
one  side  has  had  immensely  and  overwhelmingly  the 
advantage  of  the  other.  If  your  mind  had  not  been 
made  up,  as  you  seem  to  say  it  has,  I  should  like  you 
to  have  read  Dr.  Miller's  Letters  on  Unitarianism.  and 
Professor  Stuart's  Letters  to  Ur.  Charming.  In  the 
former  of  these,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  you  will  meet 
with  a  different  exhibition  of  the  opinions  of  early  and 
primitive  Christians,  from  that  to  which  you  have 
been  recently  listening,  and  to  which  you  have,  per- 
haps, acceded  as  correct." 

You  have  accordingly,  since  writing  what  I  have 
quoted  above,  sent  me  a  copy  of  Miller's  Letters, 
which  I  have  carefully  read.  I  do  not  find  that  his 
"  exhibition  of  the  opinions  of  early  and  primitive 
Christians"  at  all  overthrows  the  opinion  which  I  have 
seen,  as  I  think,  established  by  other  writers, — namely, 
that  the  early  Fathers  did  not  believe  that  the  Trinity 
was  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  those  who  be- 
lieved in  and  contended  for  this  doctrine  themselves, 
did  not  receive  it  as  it  is  received  at  the  present  day. 
I  have  neither  time  nor  strength  to  enlarge  upon  this 
point,  but  will  only  say,  that  Priestley's  History  of 
Early  Opinions  contains  very  satisfactory  evidence  in 
favor  of  my  position,  taken  from  the  writings  of  the 
early  fathers  themselves. 

You  seem  to  be  offended  because  Unitarians  insist 
that  such  a  doctrine  as  that  of  the  Trinity  ought  to  be 


60'  BIJBLE    PHRASEOLOGY. 

explicitly  stated  in  the  Bible  before  we  can  be  required 
to  receive  it,  and  much  more,  before  we  can  regard  it 
as  fundamental.  But  if  Unitarians  feel  in  this  way, 
as  I  confess  they  do,  it  is  precisely  as  your  favorite, 
Dr.  Watts,  felt.  For  proof  of  this,  read  again  his 
prayer  to  the  Deity,  as  quoted  in  my  last  letter.  But 
I  will  quote  from  your  letter.  "  Unitarians  are  right," 
you  observe,  "  in  saying  that  important  doctrines  will 
be  frequently  inculcated  in  the  Scriptures,  but,"  you 
»sk,  "  are  they  not  wrong  in  insisting  that  they  must 
be  presented  precisely  in  that  form  which  they  choose 
to  prescribe,  and  that  their  phraseology  must  be  used?  " 

Now  this  is  by  no  means  what  Unitarians  insist 
upon.  They  only  insist  that  every  fundamental  doc- 
trine must  be  capable  of  being  stated  in  Bible  phrase- 
ology. Any  proposition,  that  is  of  merely  human 
origin,  and  which  cannot  be  explicitly  stated  in  the 
words  of  the  inspired  volume,  they  would  not  consider 
authoritative;  let  such  a  proposition  emanate  either 
from  a  Unitarian  or  a  Trinitarian  source. 

Again,  you  say :  "  If  worship  to  Christ  is  command- 
ed,— if  men  and  angels  are  represented  (and  who  can 
doubt  that  they  are?)  as  worshipping  him, — if  the 
titles,  or  the  attributes,  or  the  works  ascribed  to  God 
are  attributed  to  him,  is  it  not  tantamount  to  what  they 
profess  to  want?" 

I  acknowledge  that  it  might  be  so  if  the  word  wor- 
ship was  always  used  in  one  sense,  or  if  Trinitarians 
and  Unitarians  always  used  it  in  the  same  sense.  But 
both  of  them  acknowledge  that  in  the  Bible  it  is  not 
always  used  in  the  same  sense,  that  is,  to  denote 
supreme  homage.  There  is  then  no  other  way  than 
for  each  one  to  determine  the  sense  in  which  the  word 
is  used  in  each  particular  instance,  by  other  portions 


EXPLANATIONS.  Cl 

of  Scripture  about  which  there  can  be  no  doubt  or  dif- 
ference of  opinion.  There  remains,  then,  the  second 
part  of  your  question,  "if  the  titles,"  &c.  And  here 
again  we  differ  as  to  our  premises,  and  cannot,  of 
course,  come  to  the  same  conclusion.  Unitarians  do 
not  believe  that  the  "titles,"  "attributes,"  or  "works 
ascribed  to  God  are  attributed  to  Christ,"  in  the  same 
way  or  in  the  same  sense.  I  will  not  enlarge  upon 
this  point  here,  because  it  has  been  fully  discussed 
elsewhere. 

In  another  part  of  your  letter  you  make  the  follow- 
ing inquiries.  "Have  you  become  so  far  acquainted 
with  the  productions  of  Unitarians,  as  to  satisfy  your- 
self that,  the  Trinity  excepted,  in  all  other  respects 
they  and  we  are,  and  ought  to  be,  one  people'?  If  you 
have,  I  most  heartily  rejoice  at  it,  and  I  long  to  partake 
of  the  discovery.  Do  they  believe,  as  you  have  been 
accustomed  to  hear  from  paternal  and  other  lips,  and 
accustomed,  as  I  suppose,  to  believe  and  feel  too, — do 
they  believe  in  the  lost  and  depraved  condition  of 
human  nature,  in  the  necessity  and  nature  of  the 
atonement,  in  the  constituents  and  evidences  of  regen- 
eration, in  the  cross  of  Christ,  in  self-denial  and  sacri- 
fices, in  non-conformity  to  the  world,  and  in  heavenly- 
mindedness  and  other  kindred  subjects,  as  yon  have 
been  accustomed  to  regard  these  matters?  If  so,  it  is 
high  time  we  should  come  together,  high  time  for 
Trinitarians  to  confess  that  they  have  injured  and 
slandered  their  Unitarian  brethren.  I,  for  one,  shall 
have  very  much  to  repent  of,  to  ask  God's  and  their 
forgiveness  for,  and  to  forsake.  And  I  am  ready  to  do 
all  these  things,  and  to  do  so  with  cheerfulness,  if  any 
of  them  can  convince  me  that  I  have  wronged  them. 
I  have  condemned  them  in  days  past,  but  not,  as  one 
6 


62  CERTAIN   INQUIRIES. 

of  their  writers  expresses  it,  '  without  a  hearing,'  nor 
'  from  the  unfriendly  representations  of  others.'  If  I 
have  (and  I  certainly  have)  borne  testimony  against 
them,  it  has  been  '  with  a  good  conscience.'  But  I 
think  I  have  ever  been,  and  still  am,  ready  to  do  them 
ample  justice." 

My  dear  father,  no  one,  who  knows  you  as  I  do, 
would  doubt  this  for  a  moment.  And  yet  while  men 
make  their  particular  views  of  the  doctrines  taught  in 
the  Bible  necessary  to  salvation,  I  do  not  see  how 
those  who  differ  in  their  views  can  come  together. 
The  Unitarian  is  willing  to  give  the  name  of  Christian 
to  all  who  acknowledge  Christ  as  their  divinely 
commissioned  Teacher  and  Head.  "  We  may  safely 
affirm,"  says  a  Unitarian  writer,  "  that  the  scriptural 
sense  of  the  term  Christian,  to  which  it  might  be  wise 
for  Christians  to  adhere,  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
that  of  a  disciple  of  Christ, — of  one  who,  from  a  sin- 
cere belief  in  Christ's  divine  commission  and  Messiah- 
ship,  chooses  him  for  his  Instructor  and  his  Lord." 
But  others  are  not  willing  to  use  the  term  Christian  as 
it  is  used  in  the  Bible. 

In  regard  to  the  inquiries  you  make  concerning  Uni- 
tarians, namely,  whether  I  have  found  out  that  there 
is  no  difference  between  them  and  Trinitarians  upon 
certain  doctrinal  points,  I  answer  that  I  think  there  is 
a  great  difference ;  but  differences  are  to  be  expected 
while  men's  minds  are  so  variously  constituted.  Upon 
fundamental  points,  that  is,  those  points,  a  belief  in 
which  is  necessary  to  salvation,  I  do  not  think  there 
can  be  any  difference  of  opinion,  because  I  believe 
they  are  so  plainly  revealed  that  no  honest  inquirer 
can  mistake  them.  In  regard  to  all  the  points  men- 
tioned by  you  in  the  extract  I  have  made  from  your 


THE    DIFFERENCE.  63 

letter,  Unitarians  have  a  certain  belief;  it  is  rather  a 
different  belief  from  yours,  but  they  think,  as  you  do 
of  your  views ;  namely,  that  they  are  sustained  by  the 
Bible. 

"  We  think,"  says  the  Rev.  Orville  Dewey,  "  that 
they  (that  is,  Trinitarians)  ought  to  listen  to  us,  when 
we  make  the  plea,  once  their  own," — he  had  been 
alluding  to  the  fact  that  all  Protestants  had  once  to 
defend  themselves  from  charges  of  heresy ; — "  that  we 
believe,  according  to  our  honest  understanding  of  their 
import,  all  things  that  are  written  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. 

"There  is  one  circumstance  which  makes  the  state- 
ment of  this  defence  peculiarly  pertinent  and  proper 
for  us.  And  that  is,  the  delicacy  which  has  been  felt 
by  our  writers  and  preachers  about  the  use  of  terms. 
When  we  found,  for  instance,  that  the  phrase,  '  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,'  and  that  the  words  atonement, 
regeneration,  election,  with  some  others,  were  appro- 
priated by  the  popular  creeds,  and  stood  in  prevailing 
usage,  for  orthodox  doctrines,  we  hesitated  about  the 
free  use  of  them.  It  was  not  because  we  hesitated 
about  the  meaning  which  Scripture  gave  to  them,  but 
about  the  meaning  which  common  usage  had  fixed 
upon  them.  We  believed  in  the  things  themselves,  we 
believed  in  the  words  as  they  stood  in  the  Bible,  but 
not  as  they  stood  in  other  books.  But,  finding  that, 
whenever  we  used  these  terms,  we  were  charged,  even 
as  our  great  Master  himself  was,  with  'deceiving  the 
people,'  and  not  anxious  to  dispute  about  words,  we 
gave  up  the  familiar  use  of  a  portion  of  the  scriptural 
phraseology.  Whether  we  ought,  in  justice  to  our- 
selves, so  to  have  done,  is  not  now  the  question.  We 
did  so;  and  the  consequence  has  been,  that  the  body 


64  EXTRACT    FROM    DEWEY's   SERMONS.  v 

of  the  people,  not  often  hearing  from  our  pulpits  the 
contested  words  and  phrases,  not  often  hearing  the 
words  propitiation,  sacrifice,  the  natural  man,  the  new 
birth,  and  the  Spirit  of  God, — hold  themselves  doubly 
warranted  in  charging  us  with  a  defection  from  the 
faith  of  Scripture." 

You  will  perhaps  recollect,  my  dear  father,  express- 
ing your  alarm,  when  I  told  you,  after  hearing  a  Uni- 
tarian sermon  upon  regeneration,  that  I  thought  it  a 
faithful  and  scriptural  one,  only  I  missed  some  of  the 
technicalities,  to  which  I  had  been  accustomed.  The 
substance,  I  thought,  was  there,  though  presented  in  a 
new  shape ;  the  solid  truth  I  discovered,  though 
divested  of  its  orthodox  and  popular  dress  and  drapery. 

But  further,  after  asserting  the  firm  belief  of  Uni- 
tarians in  the  Scriptures,  Mr.  Dewey  says,  "  in  the  first 
place,  we  believe  'in  the  Father,  and  in  the  Son,  and 
in  the  Holy  Ghost.'  This  was  the  simple,  primitive 
creed  of  the  Christian ;  and  it  were  well  if  men  had 
been  content  to  receive  it  in  its  simplicity.  As  a  creed, 
it  was  directed  to  be  introduced  into  the  form  of  bap- 
tism. The  rite  of  baptism  was  appropriated  to  the 
profession  of  Christianity.  The  converts  were  to  be 
baptized  into  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Christian 
religion ;  '  baptized  into  the  name,'  that  is.  into  the 
acknowledgment  'of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.'" 

After  enlarging  upon  this  baptismal  form,  he  says, 
secondly,  "  We  believe  in  the  atonement.  That  is  to 
say.  we  believe  in  what  that  word,  and  similar  words, 
mean  in  the  New  Testament.  We  take  not  the 
responsibility  of  supporting  the  popular  interpreta- 
tions. They  are  various,  and  are  constantly  varying, 
and  are  without  authority,  as  much  as  they  are 


THE    ATONEMENT.  65 

without  uniformity  and  consistency.  What  the  divine 
record  says,  we  believe  according  to  the  best  under- 
standing we  can  form  of  its  import." 

After  declaring  that  Unitarians  believe  the  death  of 
Christ  was  an  atonement,  a  sacrifice,  a  propitiation, 
he  says :  "  But  now  the  question  is,  what  is  an  atone- 
ment, a  sacrifice,  a  propitiation?  And  this  is  the  diffi- 
cult question, — a  question  to  the  proper  solution  of 
which  much  thought,  much  cautious  discrimination, 
much  criticism,  much  knowledge,  and  especially  of  the 
ancient  Hebrew  sacrifices,  is  necessary.  Can  we  not 
'  receive  the  atonement,'  without  this  knowledge,  this 
criticism,  this  deep  philosophy?  What  then  is  to 
become  of  the  mass  of  mankind,  of  the  body  of  Chris- 
tians? Can  we  not  savingly  'receive  the  atonement' 
unless  we  adopt  some  particular  explanation,  some 
peculiar  creed,  concerning  it?  Who  will  dare  to 
answer  this  question  in  the  negative,  when  he  knows 
that  the  Christian  world  is  filled  with  differences  of 
opinion  concerning  it?  ....  The  atonement  is  one 
thing;  The  gracious  interposition  of  Christ  in  our 
behalf;  the  doing  of  all  that  was  necessary  to  be  done, 
to  provide  the  means  and  the  way  for  our  salvation 
— this  is  one  thing;  in  this  we  all  believe.  The  phi- 
losophy, the  theory,  the  theology  (so  to  speak)  of  the 
atonement,  is  another  thing." 

"In  the  third  place,"  says  he,  "  we .  believe  in 
human  depravity ;  and  a  very  serious  and  saddening 
belief  it  is,  too,  that  we  hold  on  this  point.  We 
believe  in  the  very  great  depravity  of  mankind,  in 
the  exceeding  depravation  of  human  nature.  We 
believe  that  '  the  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked.'"  Then,  after  assenting  to 
several  of  the  strongest  texts  upon  this  point,  he  says : 
6* 


66  HUMAN    DEPRAVITY. 

"We  believe  that  this  was  not  intended  to  be  taken 
without  qualifications,  for  Paul,  as  we  shall  soon 

have  occasion  to  observe,  made  qualifications 

First,  it  is  not  the  depravity  of  nature,  in  which  we 
believe.  Human  nature — nature  as  it  exists  in  the 
bosom  of  an  infant — is  nothing  else  but  capability; 
capability  of  good  as  well  as  evil,  though  more  likely, 
from  its  exposures,  to  be  evil  than  good Sec- 
ondly, it  is  not  in  the  unlimited  application  of  Paul's 
language,  that  we  believe.  When  he  said  'No,  not 
one,'  he  did  not  mean  to  say  that  there  was  not  one 
good  man  in  the  world.  He  believed  that  there  were 

good  men Neither,  thirdly,  do  we  believe  in 

what  is  technically  called  '  total  depravity;'  that  is  to 
say,  a  total  and  absolute  destitution  of  everything 
right,  even  in  bad  men." 

'•  From  this  depraved  condition,  we  believe,  in  the 
fourth  place,  that  men  are  to  be  recovered,  by  a 
process,  which  is  termed  in  the  Scriptures,  regenera- 
tion. We  believe  in  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth. 
That  is  to  say,  we  believe,  not  in  all  the  ideas  which 
men  have  affixed  to  those  words,  but  in  what  we 
understand  the  sacred  writers  to  mean  by  them.  We 
believe  that,  'except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God;'  that  'he  must  be  new 
created  in  Christ  Jesus;'  that  'old  things  must  pass 
away,  and  all  things  become  new.'  We  certainly 
think  that  these  phrases  applied  with  peculiar  force 
to  the  condition  of  people,  who  were  not  only  to  be 
converted  from  their  sins,  but  from  the  very  forms 
of  religion  in  which  they  had  been  brought  up;  and 
we  know  indeed  that  the  phrase  'new  birth'  did 
according  to  the  usage  of  the  language  in  those  days, 
apply  especially  to  the  bare  fact  of  proselytism.  But 


ON    THE    FUTURE    STATE.  O/ 

we  believe  that  men  are  still  to  be  converted  from 
their  sins,  and  that  this  is  a  change  of  the  most 
urgent  necessity,  and  of  the  most  unspeakable  impor- 
tance  

"We  believe,  too,  in  the  fifth  place,  in  the  doctrine 
of  election.  That  is  to  say,  again,  we  believe  in  what 
the  Scriptures,  as  we  understand  them,  mean  by  that 
word The  truth  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion is  a  matter  either  of  scholastic  subtilty,  or  of  pre- 
sumptuous curiosity,  with  which,  as  we  apprehend, 
we  have  but  very  little  to  do.  Secret  things  belong  to 
God.  We  believe  in  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  God's 

infinite  and  eternal  foreknowledge We  believe 

in  election,  not  in  selection.  We  believe  in  fore- 
knowledge, not  in  fate 

"In  the  sixth  place,  we  believe  in  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments.  We  believe  that  sin  must 
ever  produce  misery,  and  that  holiness  must  ever  pro- 
duce happiness But  there  has  been  that 

attempt  to  give  definiteness  to  the  indefinite  language 
of  the  Bible  on  this  subject,  to  measure  the  precise 
extent  of  those  words  which  spread  the  vastness  of  the 
unknown  futurity  before  us;  and  with  this  system  of 
artificial  criticism,  the  popular  ignorance  of  Oriental 
figures  and  metaphors  has  so  combined  to  fix  a  specific 
meaning  on  the  phraseology  in  question,  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  use  it  without  constant  explanation.  '  Life 
everlasting,'  and  '  everlasting  fire,'  the  mansions  of 
rest,  and  the  worm  that  never  dieth,  are  phrases 
fraught  with  a  just  and  reasonable,  but,  at  the  same 

time,  vast  and  indefinite  import We  believe, 

then,  in  a  heaven  and  a  hell.  We  believe  there  is 
more  to  be  feared  hereafter  than  any  man  ever  feared, 
and  more  to  be  hoped  than  any  man  ever  hoped. 


68  ON    THE    FUTURE    STATE. 

"Once  more,  and  finally,  we  believe  in  the  supreme 

and  all-absorbing  importance  of  religion The 

soul's  concern  is  the  great  concern,"  &c.  But  I  must 
bring  these  extracts  to  a  close,  for  I  find  I  cannot  do 
justice  to  Mr.  Dewey  without  occupying  more  space 
than  my  limits  will  allow.  I  must  refer  you  to  the 
work  itself,*  where  you  Mill  find  much  that  must 
interest  you.  It  is  a  delightful  book.  I  will  only  add, 
that  the  sentiments  contained  in  these  extracts  are 
such  as  I  have  met  with  in  every  Unitarian  work 
which  I  have  read. 

*  Dewey 's  Controversial  Sermons,  published  in  1840. 


LETTER  VIII. 


INQUIRIES  ANSWERED. 
MY  DEAR  FATHER  : 

I  HAVE  arisen  at  the  hour  of  four  to  indite  a  brief 
reply  to  that  part  of  the  letter  you  are  writing  me 
which  has  been  received.  I  feel  so  much  exhausted 
from  the  amount  of  reading  and  writing  in  which  I 
have  been  engaged  for  the  last  two  months,  that  my 
strength  soon  fails ;  and  therefore,  my  dear  father,  you 
must  excuse  me  if  I  do  not  write  as  fully  as  you  might 
expect  or  wish.  In  reply  to  the  argument  on  your 
second  page,  commencing  with — "  what  if  they  are 
worshipping  three  gods," — let  me  refer  you  to  an 
essay  by  James  Foster,  on  "Fundamentals  in  Reli- 
gion," contained  in  "Sparks'  Collections"  for  May, 
1825.  It  conveys  a  better  answer  than  I  have  ability 
or  strength  to  give  you.  Again,  you  ask,  "where 
have  you  seen  a  great  many  exemplary  Christians, 
according  to  what  you  have  been  taught,  and  what 
you  believed  you  had  felt  of  vital,  experimental  Chris- 
tianity?" In  this  sense,  in  view  of  certain  points  of 
doctrine  which  I  had  been  taught,  and  which  I 
believed  that  every  one  must  receive  before  he  could 
be  a  Christian — I  will  answer,  that  I  have  not  seen 
them.  But  I  have  long  ago  learned  to  judge  of  a  tree 


70  MORALITY   OP    UNITARIANS. 

by  its  fruits;  it  is  our  only  means  of  judging;  it  is  the 
rule  which  our  Saviour  has  given  us,  and  must  there- 
fore be  a  correct  rule.  In  this  sense  I  have  seen  them. 
When  I  behold  a  person  doing  justly,  loving  mercy, 
and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  walking  humbly  with  God — 
wherever  I  can  thus  recognize  what  appears  to  me 
God's  image  in  my  fellow-creatures — my  soul  feels  fel- 
lowship with  such  an  one,  however  I  may  deem  him 
mistaken  in  points  of  doctrine.  It  may  be  they  are. 
as  I  have  been,  ignorantly  wrong.  Now  it  is  conceded 
on  all  hands,  so  far  as  I  have  known — and  I  have 
heard  the  opinion  often  expressed  by  Trinitarians — 
that,  as  a  body,  the  Unitarians  are  a  remarkably  moral 
people.*  But,  they  say,  that  is  their  religion;  they 
cultivate  a  high  tone  of  moral  feeling.  Well,  all  will 
be  inclined  to  acknowledge  that  this  elevated  tone  of 
morality  is  an  excellent  thing,  so  far  as  it  goes.  Now, 
when  I  hear  them  aver,  and  when  I  read  from  the 
works  of  all  their  writers  to  whose  pages  I  can  get 
access,  that  this  morality  is  the  fruit  of  a  sincere  and 
living  faith — by  living  faith  I  mean  a  faith  which 
brings  forth  fruit — in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  one 
who  comes  to  them  with  an  almighty  commission; 
with  credentials  from  his  Father  and  our  Father,  from 
his  God  and  our  God ;  with  the  same  authority  as  if 
Jehovah  himself  had  appeared  on  earth ;  I  am  ashamed 
and  confounded  that  I  have,  without  giving  them  even 
a  hearing,  without  the  slightest  examination,  been 
guilty  of  the  grossest  injustice  towards  them.  I  am,  I 
solemnly  repeat  it,  ashamed  and  confounded;  may 
God  forgive  me.  Such  uncharitableness,  however 
involuntary,  the  fruit  of  mistaken  and  narrow-minded 
opinions,  I  feel  has  been  a  shade  upon  my  character, 

*  See  Appendix  L. 


CIRCUMSTANCES    CONSIDERED.  71 

a  degradation  to  my  soul ;  and  I  bless  God  for  my 
great  deliverance. 

My  first  feeling,  after  reading  some  little  tracts  con- 
taining information  concerning  their  faith,  arid  written 
with  a  spirit  of  heavenly  love  and  meekness,  was  an 
inexpressible  relief  to  find  I  had  been  mistaken  in 
regard  to  a  numerous  and  respectable  class  of  my  fel- 
low-men ;  that  they  were  not,  even  in  theory,  what  I 
had  thought  them  ;  and,  though  mingled  it  may  be  with 
self-upbraiding,  a  discovery  like  this  cannot  but  be 
delightful,  I  will  not  merely  say  to  any  liberal  and 
enlightened  Christian,  but'  to  any  humane  rnind,  or 
human  heart.  You  ask  me,  my  dear  father,  if  I  now 
embody  in  what  I  term  Christianity  only  the  naturally 
amiable  tempers  and  correct  deportment  of  persons, 
who  have  no  savor  of  devotion,  who  deny,  and  some 
of  them  even  almost  ridicule,  that  change  taught  by 
Christ  to  Nicodemus,  and  which  I  for  a  number  of  years 
have  professed  to  believe  in,  and  moreover  to  feel, 
not  merely  as  an  outward  and  moral,  but  as  an  inward, 
radical,  and  spiritual  change.  In  answer  to  this  I  say 
no,  my  father.  Those  cannot  be  Christians  who  deny 
what  Christ  came  to  teach.  Those  are  by  no  means 
my  ideas  of  Christianity ;  and  you  will  see,  if  you  are 
willing  to  read  what  I  send  you,  that  these  are  not  the 
views  of  Unitarians.  I  will  refer  you  now  to  the  fol- 
lowing articles.  In  "  Burnap's  Expository  Lectures," 
the  article  on  "Saving  faith  in  Christ;"  an  article 
of  Dr.  Channing's,  entitled  "  Objections  to  Unitarian 
Christianity  considered ;"  the  tract  on  Christian  Salva- 
tion; the  article  "  On  the  nature  of  a  Heavenly  Con- 
versation," in  the  number  of  "Sparks'  Collections" 
for  May,  1825;  the  tract  entitled  "The  Unitarian's 
Answer;"  the  one  entitled  "  The  Doctrine  of  Religious 


72  THE   GREAT   POINT   OF   DIFFERENCE. 

Experience;"  and  "  Mr.  Whitman's  Discourse  on  Re- 
generation." 

If,  my  beloved  father,  you  should  feel  that  by  any 
step  I  may  feel  myself  bound  to  take,  I  am  showing 
you  personal  disrespect,  such  a  fact  would  add  exquis- 
itely and  infinitely  to  my  sufferings,  but  it  could  not 
alter  my  vieics  of  duty.  This  matter  is  between  me 
and  my  God ;  and,  at  my  age,  and  under  my  circum- 
stances, I  am  responsible  to  God  alone  for  my  actions. 
As  the  Almighty  sees  my  heart,  he  knows,  my  father, 
how  I  love  and  venerate  you ;  he  sees  that  you  are  the 
apple  of  mine  eye;  but,  in  a  case  like  the  present, 
prayerfully  considered  under  all  its  aspects,  I  will 
remember  my  Master's  charge  to  his  disciples,  and  call 
no  man  my  father  on  the  earth,  for  one  is  my  Father, 
which  is  in  heaven.  Matt,  xxiii.  9. 

I  have  gathered  the  opinions  of  a  great  many  Unita- 
rian writers* from  their  books;  it  is  now  my  intention 
to  hear  the  preaching  of  Dr.  Gilman  and  such  other 
Unitarians  as  may  fall  in  my  way,  that  I  may  judge 
of  his  and  their  opinions  for  myself.  I  consider  that  I 
am  acting  for  eternity,  and  I  could  tell  you  of  feel- 
ings which  ought  to  rejoice  your  heart ;  but  I  forbear, 
being  afraid  that  you  will  ascribe  them  all  to  the 
strength  of  what  you  deem  my  strange  delusion.  Per- 
haps my  future  life  will  prove,  better  than  anything 
I  can  say,  whether  the  doctrines  I  now  espouse  will 
or  will  not  bear  fruit  to  the  glory  of  God.  I  have 
decided  to  go  on  next  Sabbath  morning  to  the  Unita- 
rian Church,  and  have  thought  it  honest  and  right  to 
tell  you  so. 

I  have  read  carefully,  and,  I  would  add,  prayer- 
fully, the  books  which  you  have  placed  in  my  hands; 
but  they  have  only  served  to  strengthen  me  in  the 


LINES    ON    LUKE    XVIII.    29,    30.  73 

opinions  I  now  hold.  You  will  find  in  the  two  books 
— "  Norton's  Statement  of  Reasons,"  and  "  Burnap's 
Expository  Lectures," — explanations  of  most  of  the 
texts  you  brought  before  my  mind ;  and  I  would 
remark  that,  I  did  not  obtain  those  books  till  after  my 
views  were  changed  and  my  letters  written.  "  May 
the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God, 
and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  us 
all."  Amen. 


LINES    ON    LUKE    XVII.     29,   30. 

"  There  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  parents, 
or  brethren,  or  wife,  or  children,  for  the  Kingdom  of 
God's  sake,  who  shall  not  receive  manifold  more  in 
this  present  time,  and  in  the  world  to  come  life  ever- 
lasting." 

Father !  I  can  leave  them  all, 
At  my  much  loved  Master's  call ; 
He  refused  not,  for  my  sake, 
Sorrow's  hitter  cup  to  take, 
That  to  me  he  might  commend 
Love  like  thine,  Almighty  Friend ! 

He,  who  fainting  thousands  fed, 
Had  not  where  to  lay  his  head  ; 
He,  of  all  thy  sons  the  chief, 
Lived  a  life  of  pain  and  grief; 
He,  the  Lamb  thou  didst  provide, 
Willingly — to  save  us — died. 

Come  then,  suffering !    Welcome,  scorn ! 
Doubly  blest  are  they  who  mourn ! 
Blessed  while  on  earth  they  roam — 
Blessed  when  they  reach  their  home — 
Welcome,  loneliness  and  grief! 
There  's  a  hand  can  bring  relief. 

7 


74  LINES    ON    LUKE    XVIII.    29,    30. 

Fear  and  doubt,  away,  away ! 
See !  the  dawn  of  heavenly  day 
Brightens  in  the  eastern  skies ! 
There,  O  let  me  fix  mine  eyes ! 
See !  that  Sun  brings  perfect  day! 
Fear  and  doubt,  away,  away ! 


• 


LETTER   II. 


AN  OVERFLOW  OP  FEELING. 

MY  BELOVED  FRIEND: 

I  HAVE  received,  perused,  and  reperused  your  affec- 
tionate letters,  and  thank  you  for  them.  They  were 
dictated,  I  know,  by  the  most  ardent  love  for  me,  and 
zeal  for  the  honor  and  glory  of  the  dear  Redeemer. 
But  they  are  altogether  an  appeal  to  my  feelings,  and 
are  founded,  I  think,  upon  incorrect  premises.  And  I 
will  tell  you  why  I  say  so.  You  write  thus :  "  Crushed 
and  almost  heart-broken,  my  beloved  friend,  I  have 
just  risen  from  my  knees,  where,  if  ever  my  soul  was 
poured  out  in  prayer,  it  has  been  now  for  you,  that 
God  would,  in  his  great  mercy,  for  his  dear  Son's  sake, 
and  especially  for  your  own  soul's  sake,  even  now 
arrest  your  hand  before  it  tears  the  crown  from  the 
head  of  our  glorious  and  exalted  Saviour.  O,  how  my 
heart  clings  to  him  wherf  I  see  him  thus  sorely 
wounded  in  the  house  of  his  friends."  My  dear  friend, 
the  strength  of  your  feelings  has  misled  you.  What 
an  expression  !  "  Tears  the  crown !  "  I  speak  the 
truth,  and  I  weep  while  I  write  it,  when  I  declare  that 
I  would  sooner  die  than  rob  the  blessed  Saviour — my 
once  crucified,  but  now  risen  and  glorified  Lord,  my 
Advocate,  my  Intercessor  with  the  Father — of  one  par- 
ticle of  the  honor  and  glory  which  is  his  due.  Every 


76  LOVE    TO   JESUS    CHRIST. 

word  that  the  Bible  speaks  concerning  him  I  believe 
to  be  true.  I  believe  that  "  God  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name,  that  at  the  name  of  JESUS  every  knee  should 
bow,  and  every  tongue  confess  that  He  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father."  I  love  my  Lord  and  Master 
in  sincerity  and  in  truth — "  whom  having  not  seen,  I 
love ;  in  whom,  though  now  I  see  him  not,  yet  believ- 
ing, I  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable,  and  full  of  glory." 
I  go  to  the  Father  only  through  him,  because  I  believe 
that  He  is  "  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life,"  and 
that  "  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay."  And  when 
I  arrive  at  heaven,  which  I  shall  certainly  do  if  I 
heartily  strive  to  do  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven,  I  expect  to  unite  with  my  dear  sainted  hus- 
band and  son,  and  with  "many  angels  round  about 
the  throne,  and  the  beasts  and  the  elders — ten  thousand 
times  ten  thousand,  and  thousands  of  thousands — say- 
ing with  a  loud  voice,  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  iras 
slain  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and 
strength,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing ! "  We 
read  in  2  Peter  i.  17,  that  he  "received  from  God  the 
Father  honor  and  glory,  when  there  came  such  a 
voice  from  the  excellent  glory,  (there  is,  we  know,  a 
glory  that  excelleth,}  this  is  my  beloved  Son.  in  whom 
1  am  well  pleased."  Why  may  we  not  say  to  that 
Son  of  God,  "Thou  art  worthy  to  receive."  &c.? 

It  is  hard,  my  dear  friend,  to  accuse  me  of  tearing 
the  crown  from  my  glorious  Redeemer's  head;  and 
yet  1  know  that  the  expression  is  dictated  by  your  love 
to  that  Redeemer,  and  so  I  freely  forgive  it.  Aye, 
more ;  I  rejoice  that  you  love  him  so  well ;  but  do  not 
take  it  for  granted  that  1  do  not  love  him,  because  I 
cannot  render  him  the  supreme  homage  which  I  lion- 


CHRIST    A    KING.  77 

estly  think  belongs  to  God  alone.  The  crown  is  still 
upon  his  head;  he  is  at  the  head  of  the  mediatorial 
kingdom,  and  will  be  there  until  that  hour  when 
"  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  delivered 
up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father,  when  he 
shall  have  put  down  all  rule,  and  all  authority,  and 
power.  For  he  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  his 
enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be 
destroyed  is  death.  For  he  hath  put  all  things  under 
his  feet.  And  when  he  saith,  all  things  are  put  under 
him,  it  is  manifest  that  He  is  excepted,  which  did  put 
all  things  under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall  be 
subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be 
subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that 
GOD  may  be  all  in  all."  It  must  take  a  very  explicit 
statement  of  the  doctrine  that  there  are  three  equal 
persons  in  one  God,  to  set  aside  a  text  so  full,  so  un- 
qualified^ so  clear  as  this;  given,  as  it  seems  to  me,  in 
consideration  of  our  weakness  and  want  of  knowledge. 
My  friend  thinks  that  I  have  not  acted  with  due 
respect  to  my  beloved  parents  in  not  going  to  them  at 
first  with  my  doubts  and  fears.  At  first  sight  it  may 
appear  so,  but  I  see  from  the  manner  in  which  my  first 
communication,  which  I  meant  should  be  kind  and 
respectful,  has  been  received  by  you  all,  except  my 
father,  that  I  was  right  to  take  the  course  I  have. 
Now  do  not  misunderstand  me — I  am  a  reasonable 
being — I  feel  that  I  have  been  an  honest,  sincere,  and 
industrious  inquirer  after  truth,  notwithstanding  the 
insinuation  that  I  have  gone  with  my  doubts  to  "pro- 
fessed friends  on  the  other  side."  I  know  you  will 
believe  me  when  I  declare  that  this  is  not  true.  In  the 
spirit  and  letter  of  the  declaration,  it  is  not  true.  In  the 
solitude  of  my  own  chamber,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  my 
7* 


78  MISTAKES    CORRECTED. 

own  mind,  and,  I  trust,  the  Spirit  of  God,  have  done 
the  work.  You  have  not  received  my  communication 
in  anger,  but  has  any  one  a  right  to  take  it  for  granted 
that  I  have  relied  on  my  own  strength;  have  been 
under  individual  influence ;  have  been  taken  advantage 
of  by  Satan,  or  any  other  adversary;  have  been  given 
up  to  believe  a  strong  delusion ;  have  tried  to  reason 
myself  into  a  belief  of  Unitarianism  ;  have  yielded  to 
the  pride  of  intellect ;  have  in  heart  wandered  away 
from  God ;  have  followed  the  leadings  of  my  naturally 
proud  and  independent  spirit ;  have  rejected  a  doctrine 
because  it  is  incomprehensible?  Have  /  ever  made 
this  last  assertion?  Did  I  say  I  rejected  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  because  it  was  incomprehensible?  No, 
dear  friend,  I  have  not  said  so.  I  have  rejected  it 
because  I  cannot  find  it  in  the  Bible.  If  I  could  satisfy 
myself  that  it  was  there,  I  would  instantly  receive  it, 
however  incomprehensible.* 

Were  I  disposed  to  retort,  I  might  say  that  those 
who  receive  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  are  the  persons 
who  are  depending  upon  human  reason.  It  appears 
to  me  they  fall  into  two  strange  and  opposite  errors. 
They  first  construct  the  doctrine  upon  inference  and 
human  reason,  and  then  prostrate  reason  to  receive  it. 
I  do  not  take  it  for  granted  that  those  who  differ  from 
me  must  of  necessity  be  wrong,  and  in  a  soul-ruining 
error ;  I  only  say  that  I  cannot  see  as  they  do.  What 
fallible  creature  should  dare  to  say  that  he  knows  he 
is  right? 

You  all  lay  more  stress  upon  the  consequences  of 
my  change  than  upon  anything  else.  Consequences 
should  be  considered  fully,  fairly,  intently,  and  delib- 

*  The  modern  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is,  to  me,  so  plainly  a  contradiction, 
that  I  deem  it  impossible  it  could  be  found  in  a  revelation  from  God. 


HUMAN    REASON.  79 

erately ;  but  are  they  of  the  first  importance  ?  And  are 
you  sure  that  I  lose  sight  of  them  altogether?  I  leave 
these  questions  with  you ;  your  answer  to  them  I 
know  will  be  right. 

I  wish  you  to  place  every  argument  before  me;  I 
want  to  be  tested;  I  bless  God  for  the  late  singular 
and  providential  occurrences  in  our  immediate  family 
circle;  they  came  just  at  the  right  time.  These  cir- 
cumstances, and  a  consideration  of  the  consequences 
to  which  you  have  so  feelingly  and  justly  alluded, 
will  doubtless  lead  me  to  caution ;  but  you  must  go 
further  before  I  can  give  up  my  opinions.  You  must 
convince  me  that  they  are  unscriptural  and  untenable, 
and  I  will  honestly  and  instantly  renounce  them.  But 
when  all  you  say  amounts  to  this,  we  are  right,  and 
you  are  wrong — you  are  blind,  but  we  can  see;  I 
acknowledge  that  I  am  not  in  a  fair  way  to  be  con- 
vinced. 

My  friend  says:  "I  bless  God  that  I  have  not 
talents  which  lead  me  to  reject  all  that  I  cannot  under- 
stand." I  have  already  said  that  this  is  not  my  reason 
for  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  I  bless 
God  that  he  has  given  me  talents  which  render  me 
capable  of  judging  for  myself  what  is  revealed  ;  and  for 
the  right  use  of  those  talents  I  am  accountable  to  God. 
I  could  comment  on  one  or  two  texts  in  your  letter — 
one  of  which  is  misquoted — and  tell  you  in  what  light 
I  view  them,  but  you  do  not  seem  to  wish  any  ap- 
proach to  argument,  so  I  forbear. 

I  believe  that  for  a  long  time  I  have  been  a  follower 
of  God,  as  a  dear  child,  though  not  always  a  dutiful 
one,  and  often  I  have  had  occasion,  like  Peter,  to 
weep  bitterly  over  my  sins.  I  believe  that  I  have  been 
in  a  doctrinal  error  all  my  life,  but  it  was  an  involun- 


8U  TALENTS. 

tary  one.  I  hope  and  believe  that,  as  a  true  wor- 
shipper, I  "worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth; 
for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him."  I  believe 
that  I  am  Christ's,  and  "Christ  is  God's."  I  believe 
that  "we  are  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as 
silver  and  gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ, 
as  of  a  Lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot;  who 
verily  was  foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  but  was  manifest  in  these  last  times  for  us,  who 
by  him  do  believe  in  God,  that  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  and  gave  him  glory,  that  our  faith  and  hope 
might  be  in  GOD."  I  believe  that  Jesus  is  gone  into 
heaven,  and  is  "on  the  right  hand  of  God,  (how  can 
he  be  God,  and  be  also  on  God's  right  hand?)  angels, 
and  authorities,  and  powers  being  made  subject  to 
him." 

My  friend  begs  me  not  to  attempt  to  shake  the  faith 
of  others.  My  friend  ought  to  know  me  better.  They 
have  their  Bibles,  and  I  have  mine.  If  they  and  I 
follow  the  directions  therein  contained,  we  shall  all 
arrive  at  heaven,  where  we  shall  see  the  Saviour  as 
he  is,  and  be  forever  with  the  Lord.  But  sooner  than 
feel  that  I  am  an  object  of  suspicion  and  fear  in  this 
respect,  I  would  prefer  to  exile  myself  to  the  ends  of 
the  world,  and  live  and  die  alone.  And  this  reminds 
me  that  my  friend  uses  this  expression,  "now  more 
alone,  if  you  persist."  "Persist"  in  what,  my  dear 
friend  ?  You  have  chosen  an  unfortunate  word.  It 
sounds  as  if  you  thought  I  was  merely  taking  this 
course  because  it  was  right  in  rny  own  eyes.  Is  it 
wrong  for  me  to  "  persist"  in  adhering  to  what  are  my 
honest  opinions?  But  I  meant  principally  to  turn 
your  attention  to  the  word  alone.  If  I  persist,  who 
will  be  most  alone,  you  or  11  I  know  you  do  not  do 


A    PRAYER.  81 

me  the  injustice  to  believe  that  I  am  without  natural 
affection,  and  all  these  expressions  I  overlook,  regard- 
ing them  as  an  evidence  of  your  love,  though  I  could 
not,  in  candor,  do  otherwise  than  mention  them.  Dear 
friend,  I  want  your  prayers ;  I  want  your  faithfulness ; 
I  want  every  test  which  you  can  give  me ;  but  judge 
not  me,  nor  any  one  else,  "  that  ye  be  not  judged." 

O,  my  heavenly  Father !  If  I  have  done  dishonor 
to  thy  beloved  Son,  in  whom  thou  art  well  pleased,  I 
beseech  thee  to  convince  me  of  it  by  the  illuminating 
influences  of  thy  Holy  Spirit.  Thy  Son  has  taught  us 
how  to  pray,  and  has  told  us  that  whatever  we  shall 
ask  the  Father  in  his  name,  he  will  do  it — in  thy  Son's 
name  I  ask  thee  for  direction  at  this  most  momentous 
era  of  my  life.  And  while  I  pray  to  be  made  meek 
and  lowly  of  heart,  I  thank  thee,  that,  as  I  humbly 
hope,  thou  hast  not  given  me  the  spirit  of  fear,  "  but 
of  power,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind."  And 
may  the  talents  which  thou  hast  given  me,  be  conse- 
crated to  thine  honor  and  glory,  and  to  the  spread  of 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom;  these  things  I  ask  in  thy 
dear  Son's  name.  Amen  and  Amen. 


' 


LETTER  X. 


UNITARIANS  DO  NOT  DENY  CHRIST. 
MY  DEAR  SIR: 

You  profess  to  have  taken  your  pen  in  hand  out  of 
personal  regard  and  concern  for  me;  in  this  assertion  I 
certainly  believe  yon  sincere,  and  therefore  I  thank  yon 
for  your  kind  intentions  But  your  letter  has  been,  on 
many  accounts,  very  unsatisfactory  and  unpleasant. 
You  take  the  broad  ground  that  Trinitarians  are  the 
only  believers  in  Christ's  divinity  and  atonement. 
Now  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  this  assertion  depends 
entirely  upon  the  ideas  which  are  attached  to  the  terms 
divinity  and  atonement.  You  use  them  in  one  sense, 
Unitarians  in  another ;  and  their  sense  is  as  correct  to 
them  as  yours  is  to  you.  And  you  go  on  to  say — 
"Some,  it  is  clear,  were  foretold  as  to  be  distinguished 
by  this  trait — denial  of  the  Lord ;  and  denial  of  Him 
as  having  bought  them.  Can  you  think  of  a  party  to 
whom  such  a  phrase  is  equally  applicable  as  that  of 
the  Unitarians,  if  their  leading  tenets  be  false?  It 
does  not  say  what  men  shall  affirm,  but  only  what 
they  shall  deny.  Unitarianism  is  particularly  distin- 
guished, as  you  know,  for  its  negations.  It  is  not 
technically  nor  commonly  used  to  express  what  any- 
body does  believe,  so  much  as  what  they  do  not 


ADDITIONS    TO    TRUTH    ERRORS.  06 

believe.  It,  by  the  usage  of  all  religious  society,  (?) 
means  those  who  reject  evangelical  doctrine.*  Here 
then  is  something  of  a  prima  facie  reason  to  suspect 
that  you  may  be  going  wrong  in  joining  them" 

If,  my  dear  Sir,  Unitarians  believe  as  much  as  the 
Bible  reveals,  they  believe  enough.  This  they  profess 
to  do.  All  additions  to  the  doctrines  taught  in  the 
word  of  God,  are  errors  which  ought  to  be  abandoned ; 
and  Unitarians  cannot  find  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  the  Bible,  nor  the  doctrine  of  legal  substitution,  nor 
the  other  doctrines  peculiar  to  Calvinism.  So  far  as 
their  system,  in  comparison  with  yours,  is  a  system  of 
negations,  they  rejoice  in  the  fact ;  because  they  believe 
that  your  faith  is  encumbered  with  doctrines  of  human 
invention,  not  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God.  Bear 
in  mind  then,  that  their  system  is  one  of  negations 
only  when  compared  with  your  creed,  and  not  When 
compared  with  the  Bible.  They  have  as  much  right 
to  assert  that  their  system  is  the  scriptural  one  as  you 
have ;  and,  as  no  human  being  is  infallible,  the  ques- 
tion still  remains  a  question,  which  each  individual 
must  decide  for  himself,  according  to  his  opportunity 
and  ability  to  examine  and  understand  the  infallible 
word  of  God. 

But  Unitarians  by  no  means  admit  that  they  do  not 
believe  in  Christ's  divinity  and  atonement.  It  is  true 
that  their  belief  on  these  points  is  different  from  yours, 
but  it  is  just  as  real  and  valuable.  They  believe  in 
the  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  because  God  gave 
to  his  Anointed  his  Spirit  without  measure.\  They 

*  See  Appendix,  M. 

t  On  this  point  one  of  them,  the  Rev.  A.  B.  Muzzey,  thus  writes :  "  The 
popular  theology  tells  us  that  Jesus  Christ  is  '  both  God  and  man,"  that  he 
has,  accordingly,  'two  distinct  natures.'  In  one  aspect,  this  representation 
is  correct.  It  is  true  that  two  natures,  a  human  and  »  Hivino  ".«>»  '«.  ""*• 


84  ILLUSTRATION. 

believe  in  his  atonement,  because  it  is  declared  that 
"God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begot- 
ten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  Nor  do  they  deny 
the  Lord  as  having  bought  them,  any  more  than  they 
deny  that  God  redeemed  the  Israelites  out  of  the  hand 
of  Pharaoh  by  providing  the  means  for  their  escape. 
They  believe  that  they  are  "bought  with  a  price" 
— even  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  a  Lamb 
without  blemish  and  without  spot.  They  believe  that 
the  sinner  is  "  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son."  And  they  believe  with  St.  Paul,  that  if,  when 
they  were  enemies,  they  were  reconciled  to  God  by 
the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled, 

Saviour.  But  it  is  not  true,  that  they  constituted  one  being.  Christ,  the 
man,  was  not  united  with  a  Christ,  who  is  God,  but  with  God,  a  separate, 
independent  being,  one  who,  unlike  himself,  is  eternal,  omniscient,  and 
almighty.  He  was  in  God,  and  God  was  in  him.  The  apostle  Paul 
incites  the  Christian  to  become  a  partaker  of  the  divine  nature.  Christ,  in 
this  sense,  did  partake  of  the  divine  nature.  God  was  manifested  in  him  ; 
he  was  gifted  with  his  spirit  without  measure ;  it  is  his  connection  with 
God  that  makes  him  our  Saviour ;  destroy  that,  and  we  have  no  Saviour 
left.  So  is  it  that  two  natures  met  in  Christ."  The  following  remarks  are 
from  an  article  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Channing,  entitled,  "  Objections  to  Uni- 
tarian Christianity  considered."  He  says :  "  It  is  objected  to  us  that  we 
deny  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Now  what  does  this  objection  mean  ? 
What  are  we  to  understand  by  the  divinity  of  Christ?  In  the  sense  in 
which  many  Christians,  and  perhaps  a  majority,  interpret  it,  we  do  not  deny 
it,  but  believe  it  as  firmly  as  themselves.  We  believe  firmly  in  the  divinity 
of  Christ's  mission  and  office  ;  that  he  spoke  with  divine  authority,  and  was 
a  bright  image  of  the  divine  perfections.  We  believe  that  God  dicelt  in  him, 
manifested  himself  through  him,  and  communicated  to  him  his  Spirit  with- 
out measure.  We  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  most  glorious  display, 
expression,  and  representative  of  God  to  mankind,  so  that  in  seeing  and 
knowing  him,  we  see  and  know  the  invisible  Father  ;  so  that  when  Christ 
came,  GOD  visited  the  world,  and  dwelt  with  men  more  conspicuously  than 
at  any  former  period.  In  Christ's  words  we  hear  God  speaking ;  in  his 
miracles  we  behold  God  acting  ;  in  his  character  and  life  we  see  an  unsullied 
image  of  God's  purity  and  love.  We  believe,  then,  in  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
as  this  term  is  often  and  properly  used." 


ILLUSTRATION.  85 

they  shall  be  saved  by  his  life.  I  will  give  an  illus- 
tration of  my  meaning.  Suppose  a  civil  community 
to  be  in  a  state  of  rebellion  against  their  lawful  sover- 
eign. It  would  be  just  in  that  King  to  visit  them  with 
summary  vengeance;  but  he  is  a  compassionate  King, 
and  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish.  After 
trying  various  means  to  reconcile  them  to  his  govern- 
ment, last  of  all  he  sends  his  Son;  saying,  "They 
will  reverence  my  Son."  The  Son  willingly  under- 
takes this  mission  of  mercy.  It  is  the  aim  and  object 
of  his  life  to  persuade  the  rebellious  subjects  of  his 
kind  and  gracious  Father  to  be  reconciled  to  him,  and 
submit  themselves  to  his  just  and  reasonable  authority. 
Many  and  various  are  the  proofs  he  gives  them  of  his 
Father's  long  suffering  and  tender  love;  and  in  his 
own  person  he  gives  them  a  wonderful  example  of 
filial  veneration  and  obedience.  Such  an  example  of 
filial  devotion,  of  patience  under  suffering,  and  of 
unwearied  compassion,  the  world  has  never  seen. 
The  same  untiring  love  which  fills  the  bosom  of  the 
King,  his  Father,  dwells  in  his  own.  To  these  rebel- 
lious subjects  he  represents  his  Father  as  their  Father, 
long  suffering,  slow  to  anger,  reaoly,  upon  certain 
reasonable  conditions,  to  forgive  iniquity,  transgres- 
sion, and  sin. 

Some  are  touched  by  this  exhibition  of  his  own 
and  his  Father's  love,  and  willingly  resign  themselves 
lo  his  authority,  and  follow  his  guidance;  for  he 
comes  with  "all  power"  to  fulfil  the  objects  of  his 
mission.  But  the  great  majority  reject  his  authority, 
and  will  not  even  credit  the  genuineness  of  his  cre- 
dentials. The  more  he  presses  his  claims  upon  them, 
the  more  violent  becomes  their  opposition.  Finally, 
their  madness  and  fury  rise  to  its  height,  and  they 


86  CHRIST   OUR   FOUNDATION. 

\ 

put  to  death,  in  the  most  shameful  and  painful 
manner,  the  only  and  well  beloved  Son  of  their  mer- 
ciful King — him  who  came  only  to  do  them  good, 
and  reconcile  them  to  his  Father's  kind  and  reason- 
able rule.  This  bitter  cup  he  drinks;  this  dreadful 
death  he  meekly  endures  for  the  enemies  of  his  Father 
and  himself,  crying  in  his  agony,  "  Father,  forgive 
them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do." 

At  this  wonderful  consummation  men  stand  amazed. 
One  exclaims,  "  truly  this  was  a  righteous  man ;" 
and  all  the  people  that  came  together  to  that  sight, 
beholding  the  things  that  are  done,  smite  their  breasts, 
and  return.  Those  who  would  not  listen  to  him  in 
life,  now  become  reconciled  by  his  death.  And,  being 
reconciled,  they  will  naturally  remember  his  won- 
derful example,  his  precepts,  his  commands,  and  thus 
be  saved  by  his  life.  In  after  ages  the  story  of  his 
death  will  be  read  with  wonder  and  gratitude,  and 
will  still  be  efficacious  for  the  reconciliation  and  sal- 
vation of  mankind. 

Those  who  had  been  appointed  by  the  Son  to 
spread  the  glad  tidings  of  pardon,  and  to  carry  on  the 
Father's  benevolent  design — the  work  of  reconcilia- 
tion— would  now  naturally  preach  the  cross;  would 
know  nothing  among  men,  but  the  Son  and  Him 
cnicified.  This  would  be,  emphatically,  their  theme. 
In  this  would  they  glory.  For  this,  in  imitation  of 
their  Master,  would  they  rejoice  to  suffer  and  to 
die.  By  believing  in  the  cross,  as  held  up  to  view 
by  its  ministers,  all  could  still  be  rescued  who  are 
willing  to  be  saved  on  the  terms  proposed  by  their 
sovereign. 

Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay.  This  is  to  save 
us.  The  death  of  Christ  reconciles  us  to  God,  and 


CHRIST'S  DEATH  OUR  LIFE.  87 

his  life  teaches  us  how  to  live.  Therefore  we,  Unita- 
rians as  well  as  Trinitarians,  belong  to  the  Lord 
Jesns  Christ,  who  has  bought  us  with  his  blood.  Eter- 
nal life  is  the  gift  of  the  Father,  through  him.  Oh, 
what  a  price  he  paid  for  us !  Herein  is  love  !  Now 
hath  the  Father  given  him  power  over  all  flesh,  that 
he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  he  hath 
given  him.*  If  Christ,  under  God,  hath  given  to 
us  eternal  life,  to  Christ,  under  God,  we  belong.  We 
are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's.  Christ  says  to 
his  Father,  "all  mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are  mine." 
Now,  my  dear  Sir,  is  it  correct  to  say  that  Unitarians 
reject  the  atonement,  only  because  they  do  not  admit 
your  view  of  it?  If  they  believe  that  the  death  of 
Christ  is  efficacious  in  procuring  their  salvation,  in 
this  sense  they  believe  that  it  was  thereby  purchased. 
They  believe  that  his  death  was  necessary  to  pro- 
duce such  a  change  in  ws,  that  our  heavenly  Father 
could  pardon  our  sins  according  to  his  promise. 
Without  the  death  of  Christ  we  should  not  be  so 
likely  to  be  wrought  upon  to  repent  and  reform,  and 
without  repentance  and  reformation  we  could  not  be 
pardoned.  Thus  is  our  redemption  purchased  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who,  in  a  sense,  and  by  a  figure,  bore 
our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree ;  just  as,  in  a 
sense,  and  by  a  figure,  he  took  the  infirmities,  and 
bore  the  sicknesses  of  those  whose  maladies  he  re- 
moved while  he  sojourned  among  men. 

Thus,  my  dear  Sir,  I  have  answered  your  question 
by  affirming,  that,  whether  the  leading  tenets  of 
Unitarianism  be  true  or  false,  they  cannot  be  charac- 
terized by  the  fact  of  denying  the  Lord  that  bought 

*  John  xvi.  2. 


OO  CHRIST  S    DEATH    OUR    LIFE. 

them.  Nor  can  they  be  said  to  reject  Christ's  divinity 
and  atonement.  Though  you  and  they  entertain 
very  different  views  about  these  matters,  they  rejoice 
in  the  belief  that  their  system  is  by  far  the  most 
scriptural  and  rational  one. 


LETTER  XI, 


THE  SCRIPTURES  HONOR  CHRIST 

MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

You  ask  me  to  "consider  deeply  whether  the  whole 
strain  of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  a  great  mass  of 
passages  in  the  Old,  do  not  seem  constructed  on  the 
principle  of  honoring  Christ  as  much  as  possible. 
One,"  you  say,  "calls  him  'Rabbi;'  one,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  King;  another,  'one  who  knew  all  things;' 
another,  his  Lord  and  his  God.  There  seems,"  you 
continue,  "  to  have  been  no  fear  of  overcharging  the 
epithets  of  honor,  or  the  ascriptions  of  power  bestowed. 
Now  the  charge  of  Unitarianism  is,  plainly,  that  we 
think  too  much  of  Christ,  and  honor  him  too  highly. 
But  to  honor  him  very  highly  is  the  spirit  of  all  the 
New  Testament." 

I  freely  grant  that  epithets  of  honor  and  ascriptions 
of  power,  are,  throughout  the  Bible,  lavished  upon  our 
blessed  Master ;  but  that  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
confound  him  with  the  Supreme  God.  who  is  constantly 
spoken  of  as  a  distinct  Being  from  the  Messiah.  How 
can  the  Son  be  the  Father?  We  are  nowhere  told 
that  they  are  two  distinct  persons  in  one  being.  It  is 
true  that  Christ  says,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one;" 
but  he  also,  in  prayer  to  his  Father,  explains  his 
8* 


90  TRINITARIANS    DISHONOR    CHRIST. 

meaning  by  these  remarkable  words;  "and  the  glory 
which  thou  gavest  me,  I  have  given  them,  that  they 
may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one"  And  how  could  this 
be?  Let  our  Lord  reply;  "  that  they  all  may  be  one, 
as  Ihou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they 
also  may  be" — not  one  in  each  other,  but — "one  in 
us."* 

Further,  Unitarians  do  not  charge  their  orthodox 
brethren  with  giving  too  much  honor  to  Christ ;  they 
charge  them  with  mistaking-  altogether  the  declarations 
of  the  Bible  concerning  him.  The  Christ  in  whom 
Unitarians  believe;  who  is  a  distinct  being  from  the 
Supreme  God;  the  Son,  and  not  the  Father;  you  do 
not  sufficiently  honor;  therefore  the  charge  made  against 
you,  by  Unitarians,  is  just  the  reverse  of  the  one  yon 
have  put  into  their  lips.  What  you  call  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  yon  certainly  do  not  honor  as  the 
Unitarian  honors  his  Master.  When  Christ  declares, 
without  qualification,  that  there  was  a  certain  day  and 
hour  of  which  he  knew  nothing,  we,  who  are  Unita- 
rians, believe  him.  You,  on  the  contrary,  make  him 
prevaricate,  and,  in  one  nature,  deny  what  he  cer- 
tainly must  have  known  in  the  other :  and  yet  these 
two  natures  you  declare  to  have  been  in  constant  and 
intimate  union.  You  continually  make  him  contra- 
dict himself.  This  is,  in  my  view,  sadly  to  dishonor 
him. 

It  is  very  natural  that  the  Scriptures  should  seem  to 
labor  to  honor  Christ.  It  was  to  reveal  the  way  of 
salvation  by  Christ  that  they  were  written.  Patriarchs, 
prophets,  evangelists,  apostles,  all  hold  up  the  Messiah 
to  the  view  of  a  suffering,  sinful  world.  In  the  glow- 
ing language  of  the  east,  they  reveal  the  promised 

*  John  xvji.  21,  22. 


AN    EXTRACT.  91 

Saviour  of  mankind.  Now,  all  that  the  Scriptures  say 
of  Christ  Unitarians  joyfully  receive.  They  are  not 
afraid  of  honoring  their  Master,  but  they  are  afraid  of 
assigning  to  him  that  place  which  belongs  to  God 
alone. 

You  go  on  to  say,  "had  I  heard  of  some  great  un- 
natural attack  of  my  friend's  upon  her  venerable 
parents,  personally,  it  could  not  have  surprised  me 
more.  She  virtually  attacks  our  common  Lord  and 
Redeemer,  as  I  must  testify,  by  this  retrocession  from 
her  allegiance  to  Him ;  lessens  infinitely  his  claims  on 
her ;  lowers  his  title  to  her  confidence — his  right  to 
command — her  motives  to  love  him.  He  did  not 
leave  His  divine  throne  for  her,  she  has  discovered; 
did  not  take  upon  himself  her  nature ;  did  not  conde- 
scend to  be  a  man.  She  has  no  duty  to  Him  as  {  Lord 
of  all ;'  discards  and  repudiates  all  zeal  for  Him  as  once 
relinquishing  and  now  wielding  all  power  in  heaven 
and  on  earth.  Is  this  my  once  pious  friend?  The 
whole  character,  tone,  and  depth  of  her  piety,  how 
changed,  if  these  tidings  be  true  !" 

My  dear  Sir,  why  should  you  seek  to  make  my 
heart  sad,  when  the  Lord  has  not  made  it  so?  I  thank 
God  that  such  assertions  cannot  deprive  me  of  that 
peace  of  conscience  which  I  feel  at  this  moment;  but 
such  allusions  to  my  venerable  parents  as  the  one 
you  have  made  above,  do  make  me  sad  indeed.  God 
knows  how  it  has  wrung  my  heart  to  give  them  pain  ; 
but  He  also  knows  that  I  could  not  conscientiously  act 
otherwise  than  I  have  done. 

And  what  right  have  you  to  say  that  I  have  given 
up  my  allegiance  to  our  common  Lord?  You  require, 
before  you  will  allow  to  me  the  title  of  Christian,  far 
more  than  Christ  or  his  apostles — the  establishers  of 


92  UNITARIAN    CHRISTIANS. 

this  religion — ever  required.  Now  what  right  has 
any  one  to  do  this?  In  the  New  Testament  I  con- 
stantly find  that  men  were  commanded  to  believe  that 
the  Messiah  was  the  Son  of  God;  but  in  the  present 
day  a  very  different  faith  is  required  of  us.  Instead 
of  saying,  "  I  believe  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God,"  men  are  required  to  say,  "  1  believe 
that  thou  art  the  living  God  himself."  The  former  is 
the  Unitarian  faith,  the  latter  the  Trinitarian;  which 
of  them  is  the  more  scriptural  belief,  it  appears  to  me 
is  very  plain. 

You  cannot  produce  one  passage  of  Scripture  in 
which  the  primitive  teachers  of  Christianity  required  a 
belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Sit/trem.e  Being.  They  called 
upon  men  to  believe  and  confess  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ;  that  is,  the  Anointed;  he  who  was  to  come; 
who  was  typified  and  promised  throughout  the  Old 
Testament,  as  the  great  Mediator  between  God  and 
man.  He  was  to  be  received  as  the  glorious  Saviour 
of  the  world — anointed  and  sent  of  God  for  this  pur- 
pose, and  therefore  clothed  with  the  authority  of  God 
himself.  A  knowledge  of  his  original  nature  was 
never  made  a  requisite  before  men  could  receive  the 
salvation  he  came  to  bring.  It  was  enough  that  they 
recognized  his  divine  authority,  and  joyfully  submitted 
to  it.  And  what  right  have  modern  divines  to  require 
more  than  their  Master  ever  did? 

Should  a  father  send  a  messenger  to  a  child  in  a  dis- 
tant country,  would  it  be  absolutely  necessary  for  that 
child  to  discover  the  original  standing  and  respecta- 
bility of  the  messenger  before  he  would  receive  and 
honor  his  father's  message  ?  Would  not  his  chief 
inquiry  be,  does  he  really  come  from  my  father,  with 
full  power  and  authority  to  deliver  and  enforce  his 


SCRIPTURE    TESTS    OF    FAITH.  v    93 

will  1  This  point  once  satisfactorily  ascertained,  would 
not  the  message  have  equal  weight  whether  the  chosen 
messenger  were  orginally  rich  or  poor,  honored  or 
unknown  ? 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  original  dignity  and 
importance  of  the  messenger  would  be  a  matter  of  no 
consequence.  Far  from  it.  But  I  do  mean  to  assert 
that  his  original  character  would  not  affect  the  abstract 
question  of  his  authority,  and  of  the  child's  duty  im- 
plicitly to  obey  what  he  is  convinced  is  his  father's 
message.*  Now  Christ  comes  to  us  as  the  messenger 
of  God.  Through  Him  God  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh.  He  came  to  usher  in  the  Christian  dispensation. 
Well,  if  I  acknowledge  his  authority — let  it  proceed 
from  what  source  it  may — let  it  be  original,  or  derived 
from  the  Father,  as  he  expressly  teaches  us  it  is — the 
effect  upon  me  is  just  the  same ;  and  you  have  no  right 
to  take  it  for  granted  that  I  am  no  Christian,  and  that 
the  whole  character,  tone,  and  depth  of  my  piety  are 
changed,  when  I  acknowledge  Christ  as  my  spiritual 
Head  and  Lord  just  as  fully  and  heartily  as  ever  I  did. 
"Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant? 
To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth.  Yea,  he 
shall  be  holden  up ;  for  God  is  able  to  make  him  stand." 

*The  Trinitarian  Bishop  Watson  says,  "His  (Christ's)  authority  as  a 
teacher,  is  the  same,  whether  you  suppose  him  to  have  been  the  Eternal  God, 
or  a  being  inferior  to  Him,  but  commissioned  by  Him." 


LETTER  III, 


INSTABILITY. 
Mr  DEAR  SIR  : 

You  have  pronounced  me  " unstable"  and  perhaps 
there  are  many  of  my  other  relatives  and  friends  who 
are  at  this  very  moment  applying  to  me  the  same  inju- 
rious epithet.  But  my  experience  and  observation, 
during  my  journey  through  life  thus  far,  have  con- 
vinced me  that  the  possession  of  an  inquiring,  honest, 
independent  mind — especially  if  such  a  mind  be  con- 
nected with  an  ardent  temperament — will  nearly 
always  bring  upon  its  possessor,  at  some  time  or  other 
of  his  life,  the  charge  of  instability.  Progress  is 
emphatically  the  law  of  such  a  man's  being. 

Now,  if,  in  childhood,  he,  as  most  others  do.  receives 
his  opinions  upon  trust,  in  all  probability  the  time  will 
come  when  he  will  change  those  opinions.  If,  unfor- 
tunately, from  the  ardor  of  his  feelings,  or  some  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  his  life,  he  makes  them  known 
to  the  world  before  he  has  sufficiently  examined  and 
compared  them  with  other  and  opposite  opinions,  he 
has  the  mortifying  task  before  him  of  acknowledging 
himself  to  have  been  in  error.  But  the  truly  honest 
mind  will  not  be  deterred,  by  any  feelings  of  mortifi- 
cation, from  avowing  any  change,  which,  after  mature 


OPINIONS   SOMETIMES    TO    BE    TRIED.  95 

deliberation,  may  have  taken  place;  especially  when 
it  is  considered  that  such  a  change  is  not  always  a 
mark  of  folly.  There  is  an  old  Italian  saying,  which 
has  passed  into  a  proverb,  with  which  such  a  man 
may  comfort  himself — il  sabio  muda  conscio,  il  nescio 
no.* 

It  is  often  the  case  that  a  man  may  never  have 
occasion  to  suspect  his  opinions,  till  providential  cir- 
cumstances place  them  before  him  in  a  new  and  start- 
ling light,  and  he  sees  defects  and  errors  which  had 
always  remained  hidden  before.  Then,  if  he  be  a 
man  of  the  right  stamp,  he  will  march  boldly  up  to 
the  difficulty,  and  stare  it  in  the  face.  Perhaps,  upon 
close  inspection,  what  appeared  to  be  spots  and  blem- 
ishes will  turn  out  to  be  only  shadows  upon  a  bright 
surface — shadows  created  by  some  external  objects, 
which  will  disappear  when  those  objects  are  removed, 
and  leave  the  surface  unsullied  and  glorious  as  before. 
Or,  it  may  be,  he  will  find  that  they  are  stains  which 
cannot  be  removed;  indicative  of  unsoundness  in  the 
material  itself. 

Free  inquiry  is,  in  general,  no  friend  to  old  ideas 
and  associations.  And  it  behoves  us  to  be  cautious 
how,  with  ruthless  hands,  we  remove  the  old  land- 
marks, and  lose  sight  of  the  natural  boundaries  and 
limits  set  for  the  human  mind.  Rut,  on  the  other 
hand,  those  who  have  fettered  themselves  with  human 
pledges,  and  imprisoned  themselves  within  the  bound- 
aries of  human  creeds  and  systems,  will  find  it  ex- 
tremely difficult,  nay,  almost  impossible,  to  burst  those 
fetters,  however  galling,  or  overstep  those  boundaries, 
however  narrow  and  uncomfortable.  They  will  even 
find  it  difficult  to  give  due  credit  to  the  motives  of  those 

*  A  wise  man  changes  his  mind,  a  fool  never. 


%  IMPORTANCE   OF   INVESTIGATION. 

who  can  no  longer  remain  thus  fettered  and  impris- 
oned— who  have  made  the  effort,  and  freed  themselves 
from  bondage. 

And  here  I  cannot  too  earnestly  enforce  upon  those 
who  are  intrusted  with  the  training  of  youthful  minds, 
the  vast  importance  of  giving  them  every  opportunity 
and  assistance  in  the  candid  and  thorough  examination 
of  the  various  systems  of  Theology  professed  through- 
out the  world.  Such  a  course  will,  at  least,  teach 
them  caution  in  the  formation  and  expression  of  their 
views,  and  it  may  save  them  from  much  future  trouble 
and  perplexity.  Such  an  examination,  taking  place  in 
early  life  beneath  the  watchful  eye  of  pure  affection; 
will  ever  be  a  source  of  satisfaction  to  all  concerned, 
provided  that  examination  has  been  a  thorough  and 
candid  one.  Let  every  system  of  faith  be  brought  to 
the  test  of  Scripture,  and  not  alone  the  faith  professed 
by  our  progenitors. 

If  parents  do  not  even  allow  their  children  to  hear 
the  opinions  of  those  who  differ  from  them ;  if,  on  the 
contrary,  they  anxiously  and  sedulously  keep  them  in 
the  dark ;  if,  more  especially,,  they  ever  let  it  be  dis- 
covered that  they  dread  and  fear  any  freedom  of 
inquiry — they  may  rest  assured  that  they  are  likely 
to  defeat  the  very  ends  at  which  they  aim.  They 
cannot  always  hold  the  veil  before  their  children's 
eyes.  The  parent  bird  cannot  always  keep  its  off- 
spring in  the  nest.  The  human  mind  loves  freedom, 
and  will  not  always  consent  to  be  fettered.  The  time 
may  come  when  opinions,  which  are  merely  the  result 
of  education,  which  have  been  taken  upon  trust,  which 
have  never  stood  the  test  of  free  inquiry,  and  comparison 
with  other  opinions, — the  time,  I  say,  may  come,  when 
these  opinions  shall  be  shaken.  Then,  a  strong  and 


AN   EXTRACT.  97 

unyielding  foundation  may  be  absolutely  necessary 
to  keep  the  whole  fabric  of  faith  from  falling  like  the 
house  which  was  built  upon  the  sand. 

Oh,  it  will  then  be  a  great  mercy  if  the  entire  struc- 
ture do  not  crumble  into  absolute  ruin,  never  to  be 
built  again.  It  will  be  a  great  mercy,  if,  amid  the 
general  wreck,  enough  of  the  pure,  uncrumbled  mate- 
rial can  be  saved  for  the  erection  of  another,  and  a 
more  enduring  structure.  Such  a  result  would  be 
happy  indeed.  The  new  edifice  of  faith  would  per- 
haps be  less  imposing,  because  more  simple,  than  the 
former  one,  but  it  would  be  not  the  less  beautiful  and 
valuable.  On  the  contrary,  no  mind  could  estimate, 
no  words  could  express  its  superior  value.  Its  beau- 
tiful simplicity  and  unusual  symmetry  would  never 
cease  to  delight  its  fortunate  possessor.  Built  of  solid 
stone,  and  founded  upon  a  rock,  the  rains  might 
descend,  and  the  floods  come,  and  the  winds  blow, 
and  beat  upon  that  house,  and  it  would  not  fall,  be- 
cause founded  on  a  rock. 

You  remark:  "Yours  is  not  the  first,  nor  the 
second,  nor  even  the  third  case  in  which  I  have  been 
called  to  mourn  the  fulfilment  of  God's  awful  prophecy 
in  the  persons  of  my  own.  friends.  Some  valued 
friends  have  already  proved  that  they  were  '  given  up 
to  strong  delusion,  to  believe  a  lie,'  by  professing  that 
other  form  of  Anti-Christ  more  suited  to  the  constitution 
of  their  minds — called  Popery.  Widely  as  they  seem 
to  differ,  they  are,  when  sifted,  varied  developments 
of  the  same  enmity  to  God's  wonderful  yet  simple 
way.  My  own  mode  of  accounting  for  it  is,  that  it 
has  not  pleased  God  to  enlighten  them  with  his  Holy 
Spirit." 

To  what  "awful  prophecy"  do  you  allude  in  the 
9 


98  WHO    HAS    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT? 

first  part  of  this  extract?  Is  it  that  of  being  given 
over  to  strong  delusion,  to  believe  a  lie?  I  suppose  it 
must  be.  A  little  further  on  you  say,  that  "  it  has  not 
pleased  God  to  enlighten  them,"  that  is,  those  who  do 
not  think  as  you  do,  "  with  his  Holy  Spirit."  This  is 
quite  a  flattering  unction  for  a  man  to  lay  to  his  soul, 
I  am  willing  to  acknowledge.  It  would  be  a  very 
convenient  mode  of  settling  differences  of  opinion,  if 
we  could  only  be  certain  who  has  the  Spirit,  and  who 
has  not.  But  there  is  the  rub.  If  we  could  only 
decide  upon  some  one  living  human  being  like  our- 
selves, who,  we  were  very  sure,  was  under  this  special 
influence,  whom  we  could  consult,  to  whom  we  could 
explain  the  minutest  shade  of  difference  in  our  opin- 
ions— who  could  patiently  listen  to  all  we  have  to  say, 
and  give  us  precise  answers,  not  to  be  mistaken — our 
differences  might  all  be  speedily  and  satisfactorily 
adjusted.  Not  one  of  us  would  object  to  making  him 
the  umpire  between  us.  We  could  appeal  to  this 
infallible  guide  upon  every  topic  which  has  ever 
divided  the  Christian  world,  and  he  would  settle  the 
matter  at  once.  None  of  us  would  then  object  to  hav- 
ing a  "Pope."  How  delightful  it  would  be  to  have 
such  a  guide  at  every  step  of  our  progress  !  He  would 
tell  us  exactly  what  our  Lord  meant  when  he  said, 
"  My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  and  "  of  mine  own 
self  I  can  do  nothing."  If  we  differed  concerning  any 
of  his  own  sayings,  he  would  at  once  tell  us  precisely 
what  his  meaning  was,  and  say  to  one,  you  are  right, 
— and  to  another,  you  are  wrong. 

But,  unfortunately,  such  a  thing  cannot  be.  We  are 
not  living  in  the  times  of  the  apostles.  There  is  no 
Paul  to  whom  a  Christian  church  can  write  for  infor- 
mation upon  any  particular  point.  The  miraculous 


NO   INFALLIBLE    HUMAN    GUIDE.  99 

gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  certain  favored  individuals 
are  no  longer  to  be  expected.  In  regard  to  this,  all  of 
us  are  upon  a  perfect  equality.  Therefore  ii  becomes 
not  any  man  to  say,  that  such  and  such  a  person  has 
not  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  an  arrogant  claim,  which  I, 
for  one,  am  not  willing  to  admit ;  nor  will  it,  I  venture 
to  say,  be  admitted  by  others  who  differ  from  you. 
When  I  plainly  perceive  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit — 
"  love,  joy,  peace,  long  suffering,  goodness,  faith,  meek- 
ness, temperance" — I  joyfully  acknowledge  its  exist- 
ence. So  far  as  we,  frail  and  erring  creatures,  can 
venture  to  judge  from  evidence,  I  judge  from  what  I 
see. 

But,  in  regard  to  matters  of  opinion,  the  case  is 
altered.  Of  all  the  millions  in  the  world  who  differ  in 
opinion,  what  one  man  possesses  the  greatest  share  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  1  All  equally  claim  it ;  whose  claims 
are  the  best  ?  Why  may  not  I  have  it  as  well  as  you  1 
I  ask  for  it,  I  wait  for  it,  why  may  I  not  possess  it '? 
The  bare  assertion  of  another  that  my  neighbor  is  not 
enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is,  in  my  view,  a  poor 
reason  for  believing  it  to  be  so.  Because  your  neigh- 
bor cannot  see  as  you  do,  you  insist  upon  it,  that  God 
has  blinded  his  eyes,  that  seeing  he  may  see,  and  not 
perceive,  &c.  Ought  any  one  but  the  Searcher  of 
hearts  himself  to  attempt  the  application  of  such  a 
text?  Ought  a  mortal  to  presume  to  apply  it  to  his 
fellow-mortal  ?  If  the  actions  of  the  life  give  evidence 
of  the  dominion  of  evil  principles,  we  cannot  help 
forming  a  judgment  of  the  state  of  the  heart — we  are 
allowed  to  judge  of  men  by  their  fruits.  But  with  the 
religious  opinions  of  others  we  have  nothing  to  do  in 
the  way  of  judgment  and  condemnation.  Our  busi- 
ness lies  with  ourselves.  We  may  think  others  wrong, 


100  NO   INFALLIBLE    HUMAN    GUIDE. 

but  let  us  take  care  how  we  judge  them  harshly,  and 
without  hesitation  declare  that  they  belong  to  "  Anti- 
Christ."  Let  us  see  to  it  that  we  are  in*  the  right ;  let 
us  strain  every  nerve  to  arrive  at  the  right  spot ;  and 
"  let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind." 


LETTER  XIII, 


MENTAL  FREEDOM. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

You  are  right  in  the  supposition  that  what  you  are 
pleased  to  denominate  one  "form  of  Anti-Christ" — 
meaning  Unitarianism — suits  better  the  "  peculiar  con- 
stitution" of  my  mind,  than  "that  other  form"  you 
call  "  Popery."  I  do  love  Unitarianism  for  the  liberty 
it  gives  to  every  man  to  form  his  own  opinions  from 
the  Bible,  and,  when  he  has  formed,  to  express  them. 
Nothing  so  little  suits  the  "constitution"  of  an  active 
mind  as  any  kind  or  degree  of  mental  thraldom. 
Nothing  is  so  apt  to  weaken,  to  disease,  to  break  down 
any  constitution,  physical  or  mental,  as  close  and  pro- 
tracted confinement.  There  is  no  mental  progress 
where  there  is  mental  slavery;  and  the  active  mind 
loves  progress.  It  must  be  free,  it  must  be  at  work,  it 
must  advance,  or  it  will  chafe  and  fret,  and  prey  upon 
itself,  as  the  newly  imprisoned  bird  sometimes  strug- 
gles till  it  dies. 

The  mind,  too,  which  thinks  for  itself,  is  the  only 
mind  which  understands  and  feels  its  own  responsi- 
bility to  God.  And  where  this  responsibility  is  felt, 
care  will  be  taken  to  avail  itself  of  every  assistance 
within  its  reach  for  the  formation  of  correct  opinions. 
9* 


102  GENERAL   IGNORANCE. 

The  .habit  of  assenting  to  the  dictation  of  others  in 
matters  of  religion  is  very  much  calculated  to  deaden 
our  sense  of  responsibility,  and  to  produce  listlessness 
and  inattention  as  to  what  we  really  do  believe.  I 
speak  from  my  own  knowledge,  when  I  affirm  it  to 
be  very  generally  the  case  in  our  orthodox  churches, 
that  the  mass  of  private  members  are  exceedingly 
ignorant  of  the  speculative  and  peculiar  points  of  their 
faith.  This  is  the  natural  consequence  of  multiplying 
minor  and  unnecessary  articles  of  belief.  The  few 
great  fundamental  articles  of  religion,  such  as  all 
Christians  can  draw  from  their  Bibles,  the  majority 
understand  and  appreciate,  and,  in  general,  can  boldly 
and  successfully  advocate ;  but  of  the  peculiar  points 
of  difference  between  the  various  sects  of  Christendom 
they  are  wofully  ignorant. 

In  some  respects  this  circumstance  is  not  without 
its  advantages.  The  practical,  and  what  I  would 
call  fundamental  doctrines  of  their  religion,  exert 
their  salutary  influence  upon  their  characters,  while 
those  speculative  and  metaphysical  points,  a  belief 
in  which  we  consider  injurious  to  the  character,  he 
comparatively  inert  and  harmless.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  what  we  consider  error  is  perpetuated  from 
generation  to  generation,  because  its  unsightly  fea- 
tures are  so  generally  hidden  beneath  a  veil  of  igno- 
rance, or  altogether  lost  sight  of  through  inattention 
and  apathy.  In  former  days,  when  I  have  had  the 
doctrines  of  Calvinism  pressed  home  upon  me,  I 
have  insisted  that  such  were  not,  and  could  not 
be,  the  doctrines  of  my  church.  But  an  attentive 
study  of  the  writings  of  Calvin  himself  have  taught 
me  otherwise. 

If  I  had  known  what  I  was  doing — if  I  had  real 


ASSEMBLY'S  CATECHISM.  103 

ized  to  what  I  was  binding  myself  when  I  united 
with  a  branch  of  Christ's  church  holding  the  Calvin- 
istic  creed,  I  could  never  have  done  it.  I  do  not  say 
these  things  by  way  of  apology  for  myself;  I  only  men- 
tion them  as  facts — as  not  uncommon  facts.  I  knew 
the  Assembly's  Catechism  by  heart  at  a  very  early 
age ;  it  was  faithfully  taught  me,  with  all  its  notes 
and  references;  but  I  was  too  young,  light-hearted, 
and  thoughtless,  to  receive  from  it  any  very  definite 
ideas;  and  the  words  which  were  engraved  upon 
my  memory  were  mere  sounds,  conveying,  to  my 
mind,  very  little  sense.  It  is  now  my  business  and 
my  aim  to  forget  them,  though  they  often  haunt  me 
like  phantoms  of  the  past. 

It  was  impossible  that  I  could  then  understand, 
and  fully  receive,  what  has  puzzled,  and  will  ever 
continue  to  puzzle,  older  and  wiser  heads  than  mine. 
But  I  sincerely  hope  and  trust  that  the  unfortunate 
peculiarities  of  the  system  will,  after  a  time,  become 
entirely  obsolete.  May  the  period  soon  arrive !  It 
will  be  a  joyful  day  for  Christendom,  and  I  devoutly 
believe  it  will  occasion  joy  in  heaven.  But,  my  dear 
Sir,  I  have  unconsciously  broken  the  connection  of 
my  thoughts  by  giving  way  to  a  bright  anticipation, 
and  I  will  now  resume  my  subject. 

Once  indoctrinated,  and  received  within  the  pale  of 
the  church,  the  practical,  useful  part  of  my  religion 
especially  occupied  my  attention,  and  a  blessed  source 
of  comfort  and  support  I  have  found  it,  and  do  still 
find  it ;  and  especially,  now  that  it  is  stripped  of  its 
incumbrances,  and  I  hold  a  rational,  beautiful,  and 
simple  faith,  it  is  far  more  dear  to  me  than  ever. 

When  my  mind  began  to  act  for  itself,  I  often  felt 
perplexed  about  some  of  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism 


104  CALVINISTIC    DOCTRINES. 

My  friends  can  bear  me  witness,  how,  especially,  the 
Calvinistic  ideas  of  election  and  reprobation  distressed 
and  puzzled  me  at  various  periods  of  my  life.  The 
speculative  portions  of  my  faith  were  essentially 
opposed  to  my  tastes  and  feelings;  in  a  word — for 
you  have  supplied  me  with  the  exact  idea — to  the 
"constitution"  of  my  mind.  A  want  of  harmony 
between  my  creed,  and  what,  I  am  sure,  were  the 
best  feelings  of  my  heart,  has  always  been  a  source 
of  undefined  uneasiness;  so  that,  in  order  to  enjoy 
my  religion,  which,  from  the  pressure  of  exceedingly 
severe  domestic  afflictions,  was  necessary  for  me,  I 
clung  to  the  harmonious,  practical,  and  true,  and 
managed  to  keep  out  of  sight  those  doctrines  in  which 
I  could  never  fully  acquiesce.  The  hearing  of  doc- 
trinal, metaphysical  sermons  invariably  created  an 
indescribable  uneasiness,  jarred  the  sensitive  frame- 
work of  my  mind,  confused  my  intellect,  and  put  all 
my  feelings  out  of  tune.  And  all  this  was  not  the  less 
trying,  because  I  never  knew  certainly  what  troubled 
me,  or  what  had  created  the  discord  within.  On 
the  contrary,  practical  sermons,  or  those  recognizing 
mainly  the  universally  acknowledged,  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  our  holy  religion,  have  ever  been  my 
solace  and  delight. 

My  life  has  thus  been  one  of  inward  conflict. 
I  have  spent  my  years  in  struggling  to  believe  what 
was  revolting  to  my  common  sense,  but  what  my 
creed,  when  at  length  I  did  comprehend  it,  plainly 
told  me  I  must  believe,  or  be  lost  forever.  I  say  my 
creed  told  me  this;  for  that  the  majority  of  Calvinists 
practically  hold  such  a  shocking,  exclusive  faith — a 
faith  which  shuts  out  from  heaven  all  except  them- 
selves— I  do  not,  will  not,  cannot  believe. 


INWARD    CONFLICTS.  105 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  I  have  not  suddenly 
arrived  at  the  spot  where  I  now  stand.  My  friends 
have  often  been  startled  at  what  they  deemed  my 
temerity,  when  I  would  occasionally  venture  to 
express  my  suspicions  that  such  and  such  doctrines 
might  be  erroneous.  You  yourself  tell  me  that  you 
confess  you  are  not  surprised  at  my  change.  You 
thought  me  some  time  ago  "  too  prone  to  embark 
upon  a  sea  for  which,"  you  assert,  I  "was  not  bal- 
lasted;" and  you  also  remark,  "that  you  saw  my 
leaning,  when  you  discovered  my  tendency  to  Armi- 
nianism."  I  remind  you,  my  dear  Sir,  of  all  these 
circumstances,  to  shield  myself  from  the  charge  of 
haste  in  changing  my  opinions,  which  has  been  so 
often,  so  industriously  laid  at  my  door;  aye,  and  so 
harshly  too. 

Now  the  doctrine  that,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of 
another,  man  is  brought  into  the  world  with  a  nature 
so  totally  depraved  that  he  cannot  possibly  do  any- 
thing that  is  right,  his  understanding  so  darkened 
that  he  cannot  discern  the  plainest  truths  in  the  Bible, 
and  yet  that  he  is  held  responsible  for  the  commission 
of  sin — threatened  with  the  pains  of  hell  unless  he 
does  what  he  has  no  power  to  do,  and  understands 
what  he  has  no  ability  to  understand — is  a  doctrine 
which  never  seemed  to  me  quite  right.  Not  more 
right  did  the  doctrine  seem  that  one  portion  of  the 
human  race  were  elected  to  eternal  misery,  and  the 
other  portion  to  eternal  happiness  by  a  special,  uncon- 
ditional decree  of  God;  and  it  also  seemed  strange 
to  me  that  all  mankind  were  exhorted  to  repent  and 
be  saved  by  the  atonement  of  Christ,  when  that  atone- 
ment was  made  only  for  a  very  small  number.  These 
and  their  kindred  doctrines,  it  has  often  seemed  to  me, 


106  INWARD   CONFLICTS. 

in  years  gone  by,  could  only  be  received  by  dethron- 
ing reason  and  common  sense;  and  I  have  not  been 
surprised  to  notice  the  curl  upon  the  lip  of  the 
scorner,  when  these  and  similar  doctrines  have  been 
held  prominently  forth  from  some  of  the  pulpits  of 
our  land. 

No,  I  repeat  it,  I  have  not  suddenly  arrived  at  rny 
present  position.  Many  years  of  dissatisfaction  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  change  which  has  appeared  to 
electrify  my  relatives  and  friends.  Your  superior 
discernment  probably  saved  you  from  experiencing  a 
similar  shock.  The  powerful  impressions  of  child- 
hood, the  strong  cords  of  education  and  early  associa- 
tion which  held  the  system  together,  have  not,  I  can 
assure  both  you  and  them,  been  sundered  in  a  moment. 
One  knot  after  another  has  been  untied.  I  have  felt 
the  framework  loosening,  and  trembling,  and  parting 
joint  after  joint,  till,  at  length,  it  has  fallen  asunder. 
The  fall  seems,  to  others,  sudden  and  woful.  This  is 
because  the  struggle  through  which  I  have  for  years 
been  passing,  could  be  known  only  to  myself.  Indeed, 
it  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  been  known  to  myself; 
at  any  rate,  I  did  not  certainly  know  to  what  the 
conflict  was  tending. 

It  has  been  severe  and  disheartening.  My  best  and 
brightest  days  have  been  sacrificed  to  what  I  now  deem 
an  erroneous  creed;  yet  I  scarcely  know  whether 
to  regret  that  this  has  been  the  case.  In  one  view  of 
the  subject,  I  can  thank  God  for  it  all.  It  makes  me 
charitable  and  forgiving  towards  those  who  hold  this 
dreadful  faith ;  who  are  not  willing  to  grant  me  the 
name  of  Christian ;  who  rank  me  with  the  adherents 
of  "Anti-Christ,"  though  I  still  regard  Christ  as  my 
spiritual  head,  my  master  and  my  Lord,  and  still 


INWARD    CONFLICTS.  107 

recognize,  with  all  my  heart,  his  divine  authority.  It 
makes  my  present  foundation  like  the  solid  rock,  my 
present  views  definite  and  strong,  my  hopes  firm  and 
bright,  my  joys  calm  and  enduring,  my  sufferings 
useful ;  and  it ,  makes  me  prize  unspeakably  that 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  me  free. 


LETTER  XIV. 


CALVINISM. 
MY  DEAR  SIR: 

I  NOT  long  ago  heard  two  orthodox  divines  of  the 
Calvinistic  school  congratulating  themselves  upon  the 
perfection  of  their  system,  remarking  that  they  prized 
it  because  all  the  parts  of  it  "dovetailed"  together 
so  nicely.  Yes,  Sir,  it  is  certain  they  do  dovetail 
in  a  beautiful  manner,  but  it  is  only  as  a  system  of 
human  invention  that  they  do  so ;  they  certainly  do 
not  harmonize  with  human  reason,  nor,  it  is  plain  to 
me,  with  Scripture ;  certainly  not  with  the  character 
of  God  as  it  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible. 

But  it  gratifies  me  to  observe  that  the  Calvinists, 
with  whom  I  am  acquainted,  are  quite  solicitous  to 
soften  down  the  rigid  features  of  their  system.  It  is 
an  evidence  that  in  the  present  age  of  the  world  it 
cannot  be  received  in  all  its  harshness,  as  Calvin 
himself  taught  it,  nor  as  it  has  since  been  taught  by 
some  of  the  leading  divines  in  this  and  other  countries. 
What  would  the  stern  reformer  say,  could  he  know 
the  modifications  of  his  system  common  at  the  present 
day?  A  short  time  since  I  heard  a  very  intelligent 
lady  attempting  to  shield  it  from  reproach,  and  she 
avowed  that  she  had  no  sympathy  with  "  Calvinism 


CALVINISM.  109 

run  mad,"  as  she  termed  the  view  of  it  which  had 
been  presented  to  her  mind.  But  that  insane  Calvin- 
ism is  by  no  means  as  insane  as  it  was  when  Calvin 
gave  it  to  the  world.  The  truth  is,  Calvinists  shrink 
with  horror  when  the  legitimate  consequences  of  their 
system  are  portrayed  before  them  ;  they  are  unwilling 
to  admit  the  truth  of  the  exhibition.  Such  persons,  I 
take  it,  are  Calvinists  only  in  name.  I  hear  frequent 
remonstrances  against  pushing  these  doctrines  to  ex- 
tremes, but  I  cannot  see  that  these  extremes  reach 
even  as  far  as  Calvin  pushed  them,  or  as  far  as  they 
were  carried  by  the  Westminster  divines,  or  President 
Edwards.* 

Those  who  oppose  Calvinism  are  generally  charged 
with  misrepresenting  its  doctrines ;  but  a  few  extracts 
from  the  standard  Calvinistic  writers  will  suffice  to 
show  that  this  is  not  the  case  ;  that  is,  if  language  con- 
veys the  same  meaning  upon  this  subject  that  it  does 
upon  others.  It  is  difficult  to  portray  the  horrors  of 
Calvinism  in  stronger  language  than  its  own  advocates 
have  used.  The  Westminster  Assembly's  Catechism 
speaks  of  "the  corruption  of  his  (man's)  nature, 
whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  to  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly 
inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  continually." 

Calvin  says,  "  even  our  very  natural  faculties  are  all 
depraved  and  contaminated.  Whence  it  is  that  we 
are  moved  from  within  by  no  thought  to  do  well. 
Wherefore,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  I  detest  those  who 
ascribe  to  us  any  freedom  of  will,  by  which  we  may 
prepare  ourselves  to  receive  the  grace  of  God,  or  by 
which  we  may  of  ourselves  cooperate  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  may  be  given  us."  Then  there  is  nothing 

*  See  Appendix  N. 

10 


110  CALVINISTIC    DOCTRINES. 

which  we  can  do ;  and  what  becomes  of  our  responsi- 
bility? And  is  the  last  remark  quoted  from  Calvin 
consistent  with  the  benign  spirit  of  Christianity? 
Where  has  our  Master  ever  given  us  leave  to  detest 
those  who  differ  from  us  in  mere  opinion?  Oh,  my 
dear  Sir,  let  it  be  our  aim  to  follow  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  Calvin. 

President  Edwards  says :  "  So  long  as  men  are  in 
their  natural  state,  they  not  only  have  no  good  thing, 
but  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  have  or  do  any 
good  thing." 

Do  you  say  they  are  to  blame  for  being  in  this  state, 
or  even  for  remaining  in  it?  How  are  they  to  get  out 
of  it?  President  Edwards  says  that,  while  in  this 
state,  which  is  their  natural  state,  it  is  impossible  for 
them  to  do  any  good  thing.  How  are  they  to  blame 
for  what  it  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  impossible,  for 
them  to  do  ?  If  you  insist  that  they  are  to  blame,  pray 
tell  me  how. 

According  to  Calvinism,  they  cannot  help  them- 
selves. They  cannot  repent  and  turn  to  God,  as  the 
Scriptures  command  "all  men,  everywhere,"  to  do. 
What  a  mockery  does  this  system  make  of  the  pre- 
cious invitations  which  the  gospel  gives  to  "  every  crea- 
ture!" If  they  are  "utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  to  all  that  is  spiritually  good,"  how  can 
God  entreat,  aye,  command  them  to  become  so  ?  It  is 
a  bitter  mockery  to  press  the  claims  of  the  gospel  upon 
those  who  are  so  utterly  helpless. 

The  God  who  will  punish  men  for  being  and  remain- 
ing in  the  condition  in  which  they  were  born,  and 
from  which  they  have  no  ability  to  free  themselves, 
cannot  be  the  God  of  the  Bible,  who,  we  are  told,  is 
LOVE.  To  make  the  case  still  more  desperate,  they 


CALVINISTIC    DOCTRINES.  Ill 

are,  according  to  Calvin,  the  subjects  of  an  absolute 
decree  of  the  Almighty ;  a  decree  which  he  declared, 
at  some  moment  when  the  horrible  deductions  from  his 
premises  stared  him  in  the  face,  to  be  "a  dreadful 
one."  He  informs  us  that  the  reprobate  were  created 
for  this  very  purpose — that  they  might  be  examples  of 
God's  severity.  He  declares  that  "they  cannot  avoid 
the  necessity  of  sinning,  especially  as  this  necessity  is 
imposed  upon  them  by  the  ordinance  of  God." 

The  Assembly's  Catechism  says,  "  the  rest  of  man- 
kind (that  is,  the  non-elect)  God  was  pleased,  according 
to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby 
he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy,  as  he  pleaseth,  for 
the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to 
pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for 
their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice."  And 
President  Edwards  asserts  that  God  "  decrees  all  sins." 

Now  if  we  are  under  such  a  government  as  this, 
how  can  God,  even  consistently  with  his  attribute  of 
justice,  punish  or  reward  us  for  anything  we  do  1  But 
the  Catechism  says,  "  the  punishment  of  sin  in  the 
world  to  come  is  everlasting  separation  from  the  com- 
fortable presence  of  God,  and  most  grievous  torments, 
in  soul  and  body,  without  intermission,  in  hell-fire 
forever."  This  punishment  is  the  consequence  of  sin 
growing  out  of  what  Edwards  calls  the  dreadful  con- 
dition of  natural  man.  He  says  that  "  natural  men 
are  held  in  the  hands  of  God  over  the  pit  of  hell ;  they 
have  deserved  the  fiery  pit,  and  are  already  sentenced 
to  it ;  and  God  is  dreadfully  provoked ;  his  anger  is  as 
great  towards  them  as  to  those  that  are  actually  suf- 
fering the  execution  of  the  fierceness  of  his  wrath  in 
hell." "  The  devil  is  waiting  for  them;  hell  is  gap- 


112  CALVINISTIC    DOCTRINES. 

ing  for  them ;  the  flames  gather  and  flash  about  them, 
and  would  fain  lay  hold  on  them  and  swallow  them 
up." 

Addressing  the  unconverted,  he  says,  "  the  God  who 
holds  you  over  the  pit  of  hell,  much  as  one  holds  a 
spider  or  some  loathsome  insect,  abhors  you  and  is 
dreadfully  provoked;  his  wrath  towards  you  burns 
like  fire ;  he  looks  upon  you  as  worthy  of  nothing  else 
but  to  be  cast  into  the  fire ;  he  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to 
bear  to  have  you  in  his  sight ;  you  are  ten  thousand 
times  so  abominable  in  his  eyes,  as  the  most  hateful 
and  venomous  serpent  is  in  ours."  I  ask,  my  dear  Sir, 
is  this  the  God  who  is  represented  by  the  Father  in 
the  beautiful  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  ? 

Calvin  says,  that  "  even  infants  bring  their  damna- 
tion with  them  from  their  mother's  womb ;  for,  although 
they  have  not  yet  produced  the  fruits  of  their  iniquity, 
they  have  the  seed  of  it  enclosed  within  them.  Nay, 
their  whole  nature  is,  as  it  were,  a  seed  of  sin,  so  that 
it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  odious  and  abominable  to 
God."  And  yet  our  Saviour  said  of  little  children, 
"  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  !  " 

I  could  easily  go  on,  my  dear  Sir,  and  quote  page 
after  page  of  such  dreadful  sentences ;  but  you  know 
as  well  as  I  do  where  they  are  to  be  found,  and  I  long 
to  turn  my  thoughts  away  from  the  sickening  subject. 
It  brings  dark  pictures  of  the  past  afresh  to  my  mind 
— it  recalls  hours  of  anguish  which  I  would  forever 
forget.  But  I  wished  to  do  my  part  in  shielding  from 
the  charge  of  exaggeration  those  who  oppose  Calvin- 
ism, and  among  these  I  now  rank  myself.  With  how 
much  reason  the  charge  is  made,  let  the  foregoing 
extracts  decide. 


• 

• 


LETTER  XV, 


GOD  OUR  FATHER. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

IF  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism  are  contrary  to  all  our 
ideas  of  justice,  at  what  an  infinite  remove  are  they 
from  any  idea  of  benevolence !  Yet  how  benevolent 
is  the  character  of  God  as  it  is  represented  to  us  in  the 
Bible.  He  is  there  exhibited  as  our  Father.  And  the 
love  of  a  father  to  his  child  is  but  a-  faint  emblem  of 
the  love  of  God  to  us.  Our  Saviour  says,  "  if  ye  then, 
being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your 
children,  how  much  more  will  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  him." 

What  thoughts  of  love,  what  sweet  associations 
rush  in  upon  the  heart  when  we  call  our  God  by  the 
tender  name  of  Father !  How  could  God  more  forci- 
bly have  impressed  his  love  upon  us  ?  What  child  of 
a  kind  earthly  father  does  not  understand  in  a  moment 
the  endearing,  the  intimate  relation  he  sustains  to  God, 
when  he  allows  us  to  view  him  as  a  Father?  But, 
moreover,  the  Bible  certainly  reveals  the  Creator  as  a 
being  of  infinite  justice  and  goodness.  Nor  is  he  merely 
just  to  himself  and  to  his  law,  he  is  just  to  his  crea- 
tures. 

But,  you  will  say,  the  same  Bible  also  reveals  the 
truth  that  man,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  comes 
10* 


114  CONCEPTIONS    OF    GOD. 

into  the  world  totally  depraved,  and  that  he  is  liable  to 
everlasting  punishment  in  consequence  of  that  hered- 
itary depravity.  We  answer  that  such  a  doctrine 
cannot  be  taught  in  the  same  book  which  reveals  God 
as  good  and  just,  because  it  is  contrary  to  all  our  ideas 
of  justice  and  goodness.  You  will  tell  me  that  no 
estimate  can  be  formed  of  the  character  of  God  from 
our  knowledge  of  these  attributes  as  they  exist  in  our- 
selves. But  our  conceptions  of  the  attributes  of  God 
can  be  formed  in  no  other  way.  The  Bible  is  a  special 
revelation  to  us,  and  its  language  must  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  of  our  nature.  The  only 
ideas  we  can  form  of  moral  and  spiritual  attributes, 
must  be  from  ourselves.  Why  else  were  they  revealed 
to  us  at  all?  We  have  no  other  means  of  judging. 
Because  in  us  they  are  finite,  and  in  God  they  are 
infinite,  it  does  not  follow  that  their  nature  may  not 
be  precisely  the  same.* 

I  acknowledge  that  the  man  who  has  so  debased 
himself  that  he  has  no  honor,  no  integrity,  no  justice, 
no  benevolence,  can  know  but  little  of  such  things  in 
others — can  form  scarcely  any  idea  of  those  attributes 
as  they  exist  in  the  character  of  God  or  of  his  fellow- 
men.  But  men  so  totally  devoid  of  every  correct  feel- 
ing are  not  often  found.  Most  men  possess  a  share 
of  these  attributes,  and  some  possess  them  in  a  very 
high  degree. 

The  things  around  us  take  their  complexion  very 
much  from  the  state  of  our  own  minds.  If  there  be 
beauty  within,  we  shall  be  very  apt  to  discover 
beauty  without;  if  there  be  loathsomeness  and  deform- 
ity within,  everything  around  us  will  seem  loathsome 
and  deformed.  A  discontented  mind  sees  no  fitness  nor 

*  See  Appendix  O. 


CONCEPTIONS   OF   GOD.  115 

beauty  in  anything,  while  a  contented  one  gives  its 
possessor  "  a  continual  feast."  If  we  apply  this  law 
of  the  mind  to  our  conceptions  of  God's  character,  we 
must  acknowledge  that  the  more  perfect  our  character 
is,  the  more  exalted  will  be  our  ideas  of  God's  glori- 
ous attributes. 

If,  then,  our  ideas  of  the  character  of  God,  so  far 
as  it  has  been  revealed  to  us,  must  be  founded  upon 
those  of  our  own  nature,  a  system  which  does  violence 
to  these  natural  ideas  is  a  system  of  doubt  and  confu- 
sion, and  is  apt  to  lead,  on  the  one  hand,  to  blind 
superstition,  or,  on  the  other,  to  thorough  infidelity. 
That  these  results  are  not  more  universal,  I  ascribe  to 
the  fact  that  the  practical  truths  which  are  mingled 
with  such  speculative  errors,  are  all  powerful  to  pre- 
serve the  majority  of  those  who  profess  them  from 
dangerous  extremes.  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of 
knowing  a  great  number  of  Calvinists  who  were 
cheerful,  spontaneous,  practical  Christians;  not,  as  I 
think,  in  consequence  of  their  creed,  but  in  spite  of  it. 
There  are  a  great  many  persons  in  whom  natural 
good  sense,  sound  judgment,  and  the  kindly  influences 
of  surrounding  circumstances  have  operated  to  render 
inert  and  harmless  the  evil  tendencies  of  their  specu- 
lative belief.  Many  are  theoretically  wrong,  while 
they  are  practically  right. 

You  have  told  me  also  that  "you  cannot  understand 
how,  with  my  eyes  about  me,  I  can  doubt  the  natural 
and  total  depravity  of  all  the  human  race.  It  is  indeed 
very  true  that  I  see  all  around  me  too  many  convincing 
evidences  of  depravity  not  to  believe  in  its  existence. 
But  that  it  is  innate  or  total,  I  do  not  believe.  I  have 
made  up  my  mind,  after  a  diligent  search  for  the  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine  of  original  sin,  that  such  a  doctrine  is 


116  NATIVE    DEPRAVITY. 

not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  and  that  those  passages 
which  seem  to  teach  it  have  been  misapplied  and  mis- 
understood. They  speak  of  the  fact  of  its  existence, 
not  of  its  origin. 

I  Jhink  also  that  such  a  belief  fosters  immorality, 
and  is  exceedingly  debasing  to  the  mind.  If  we  are 
taught  from  our  earliest  years  that  we  are  by  nature 
entirely  disposed  to  evil,  and  unable  to  do  good,  we 
shall  be  very  apt  to  feel  that  we  must  content  ourselves 
with  a  state  of  things  which  we  cannot  possibly 
remedy;  and,  on  other  subjects  certainly,  this  would 
seem  to  be  real  philosophy.  Naturally  enough,  we 
should  conclude  that  any  effort  of  ours  to  alter  our 
miserable  condition,  would  be  entirely  superfluous 
and  useless. 

It  appears  to  me  also  that  our  incessant  notice  of  the 
prevalence  of  evil  arises  from  the  fact  that  vice  attracts 
this  notice  more  than  virtue.  It  strikes  us,  because  it 
is  unnatural.  It  interrupts  the  natural  harmony  of 
things,  and  introduces  discord  and  confusion.  Thus 
we  notice  vice  because  it  disturbs  us,  and  because  it 
disturbs  the  course  of  moral  nature,  while  virtue  is  in 
harmony  with  the  general  and  common  feeling — with 
the  moral  world  around  us.  Vice  attracts  our  notice 
because  we  do  not  expect  it.  while  virtue  is  what  we 
seem  naturally  to  expect.  Vice  excites  our  surprise 
and  reprehension,  while  virtue,  except,  it  may  be,  in 
some  uncommon  and  splendid  cases,  is  passed  by, 
as  a  matter  of  course.  In  short,  virtue  is  the  rule,  and 
vice  the  exception. 

Now  if  men  are  in  the  corrupt  and  helpless  condi- 
tion in  which  Calvinism  places  our  unfortunate  race, 
the  exhibition  of  the  smallest  virtue  would  naturally 
be  a  matter  of  unbounded  surprise.  Yet  how  com- 


NATIVE    DEPRAVITY.  117 

mon,  how  almost  universal,  are  the  delightful  domestic 
virtues !  Where  they  do  not  exist,  we  feel  that  our 
nature  has  been  outraged,  and  its  principles  violated. 
We  call  such  cases  unnatural.  But  if  men  are  prone 
to  evil,  and  only  evil,  and  that  continually,  and  so 
prone  to  it  that  they  are  entirely  disabled  from  doing 
any  good  thing  at  all,  why  is  there  any  redeeming 
trait?  Why  are  not  all  men  just  as  bad  as  they  can 
be  ?  Why  are  there  any  restraints  upon  society  ?  If 
all  are  totally  depraved,  why  are  not  all  alike? 
Unless  it  be,  as  some  person  once  remarked,  that  all 
are  totally  depraved,  only  some  are  more  totally  so 
than  others. 

And  what  possible  good  can  degrading  views  of  our 
nature  do  us  ?  Surely  they  are  not  calculated  to  teach 
us  humility;  for  he  who  regards  himself  as  naturally 
degraded,  has  no  reason  to  be  humbled  because  of  his 
degradation.  He  cannot  help  it,  he  is  the  victim  of 
inexorable  fate.  He  is  driven  on  to  his  own  ruin  by  a 
power  which  he  cannot  resist.  He  is  a  mere  machine, 
performing  faithfully  the  work  for  which  he  was 
created.  If  any  one  says  that  this  is  not  Calvinism,  I 
ask  him  to  read  the  works  of  Calvin,  and  see.  Surely 
there  is  no  room  for  humility  when  a  man  is  only  ful- 
filling, by  compulsion,  his  destiny.  But,  on  the  con- 
trary, if  he  who  knows  himself  to  be  capable  of  great 
and  noble  things  falls  far  short  of  fulfilling  his  glorious 
destiny,  has  he  not  cause  to  be  humbled  in  the  very 
dust?  In  the  former  case,  the  man's  want  of  ability 
is  certainly  an  excuse ;  in  the  latter,  his  ability  affords 
strong  ground  for  the  deepest  self-condemnation  and 
humility. 


LETTER  XVI, 


CONTEMPLATION  OF  VIRTUE  BENEFICIAL. 
MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

DEGRADING  views  of  our  nature  are  certainly  debas- 
ing to  the  mind.  It  is  a  natural  law  that  we  are  apt 
to  assimilate  most  thoroughly  with  those  things  which 
we  contemplate  most  frequently.  The  contemplation 
of  virtue  is  calculated  to  inspire  the  love  of  virtue, 
and  to  prompt  to  virtuous  deeds ;  while  he,  who,  even 
speculatively,  becomes  familiar  with  vice,  is  in  danger 
of  contamination  and  practical  debasement.  I  believe 
no  one  will  deny  that  this  is  a  fundamental  law  of  the 
mind;  while  some  even  go  so  far  as  to  apply  this  law 
to  our  physical  nature,  and  assert  that  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  beautiful  will  produce  beauty. 

Taking,  however,  for  granted,  the  existence  of  this 
mental  law,  I  remark,  that  he  who  is  constantly  on  the 
watch  for  evidence  of  human  depravity,  does  himself  a 
serious  injury.  In  his  anxiety  to  establish  the  truth 
of  a  theory,  he  may  become,  in  his  own  person,  its 
most  conspicuous  example.  His  theory  may  be,  in 
himself,  reduced  to  practice.  But  he  who  gladly  hails 
every  trait  of  God's  image  in  his  brother  man — who 
feels  a  thrill  of  joy  when  he  hears  of  any  action  of 
generous  self-sacrifice  for  the  good  of  another — whose. 


TRIUMPHS    OF    VIRTUE.  119 

pulses  throb  at  the  recital  of  noble  deeds ;  he  who  most 
watches  for,  and  most  gladly  hails  such  delightful 
developments  of  human  sympathy  in  others,  is  most 
sure  to  glow  with  sympathy  himself,  and  to  reflect  the 
image  of  his  benevolent  God  and  Father.  Such  a 
person  illumines  and  rejoices  all  around  him. 

And  how  comes  it  that  there  is  always  such  a 
general  burst  of  generous  human  feeling  at  the  news 
of  any  great  act  of  virtue,  even  if  it  come  to  us  from 
the  remotest  corners  of  the  earth'?  The  first  shout  of 
joy  and  triumph  is  ever  swelling  higher  and  higher, 
and  waxing  louder  and  louder  as  it  rolls  onward 
towards  the  most  distant  lands.  Through  raging 
oceans,  over  rugged  mountains,  the  tide  of  human 
feeling  rolls,  a  pure  and  undivided  stream,  gathering 
tribute  and  swelling  as  it  goes.  Thus,  the  world  over, 
heart  meets  heart ;  and  virtue  receives,  sooner  or  later, 
a  sure  reward.  But,  if  men  are  totally  depraved, 
they  would  naturally  rejoice  only  in  the  triumph  of 
vice. 

What  a  pealing  anthem  of  joy  resounded  through 
every  land  when  the  tidings  came  that,  for  conscience' 
sake,  the  ministers  and  people  of  the  Free  Church  of 
Scotland  had  given  up  their  beloved  altars,  and  gone 
forth,  poor  and  unsheltered,  beneath  the  broad  canopy 
of  heaven!  What  meant  that  universal  shout?  Of 
what  was  it  a  sign  1  Why  did  the  heart  beat  quicker 
than  was  its  wont,  and  the  tear  of  emotion  suffuse  the 
eye?  It  was  because  the  motive  which  impelled  those 
men — let  it  even  have  been,  as  some  suppose,  a  mis- 
taken one — found  a  glad  response  in  every  human 
breast.  It  was  because  they  gave  up  all  for  con- 
science' sake. 

In  the  life  of  the  great  and  good  Fenelon,  a  cir- 


120  THE    GOOD    FENELON. 

cumstance  is  related  which  gives  an  appropriate  and 
capital  illustration  of  the  power  of  goodness  to  reach 
and  soften  the  hardest  hearts.  The  circumstance  is 
thus  narrated: 

"  The  diocese  of  Cambrai  was  often  the  theatre  of 
war,  and  experienced  the  cruel  ravages  of  retreating 
and  conquering  armies.  But  an  extraordinary  respect 
was  paid  to  Fenelon  by  the  invaders  of  France.  The 
English,  the  Germans,  and  the  Dutch,  rivalled  the 
inhabitants  of  Cambrai  in  their  veneration  for  the 
Archbishop.  All  distinctions  of  religion  and  sect,  all 
feelings  of  hatred  and  jealousy  that  divided  the  nations, 
seemed  to  disappear  in  the  presence  of  Fenelon.  Mili- 
tary escorts  were  offered  him  for  his  personal  secu- 
rity, but  these  he  declined,  and  traversed  the  countries 
desolated  by  war,  to  visit  his  flock,  trusting  in  the 
protection  of  God.  In  these  visits,  his  way  was 
marked  by  alms  and  benefactions.  While  he  was 
among  them  the  people  seemed  to  enjoy  peace  in  the 
midst  of  war." 

Here  is  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the  sovereign 
power  of  goodness.  Enemies  are  made  friends;  the 
evil  passions  engendered  and  fostered  by  war,  are 
changed  into  mildness  and  kind  regard.  And  all  this 
because  of  the  inspiring  presence  of  a  good  man  ! 

"The  virtues  of  Fenelon,"  says  his  biographer, 
"give  his  history  the  air  of  romance;  but  his  name 
will  never  die.  Transports  of  joy  were  heard  at  Cam- 
brai when  his  ashes  were  discovered,  which,  it  was 
thought,  had  been  scattered  by  the  tempest  of  the  rev- 
olution ;  and  to  this  moment  the  Flemings  call  him 
'  the  good  Archbishop.'  " 

After  all  that  I  have  said,  my  dear  Sir,  after  plainly 
stating  to  you  how  Calvinism  appears  to  me  now.  you 


HORROR    OF    CALVINISM.  121 

will  not  wonder  that  I  dread  and  fear  it.  I  regard  it 
almost  as  I  would  some  venomous  serpent,  from  whose 
fangs  I  have  but  narrowly  escaped.  Too  long  has  it 
been  coiling  itself  around  my  struggling  spirit.  That 
its  poisonous  fangs  have  not  reached  my  vitals,  I  owe 
to  that  wonderful  providence  of  God  which  has  pro- 
tected me  from  harm,  and,  at  length,  provided  a  way 
of  escape.  He  has  given  me  strength  to  struggle  on, 
till,  at  length,  I  have  thrown  the  monster  from  me. 
1  bless  God  for  my  escape. 

You  will  perhaps  think  that  this  is  unreasonably 
strong  language ;  but  if  you  only  knew  how  I  have 
suffered — how  my  whole  life  has  been  clouded  over  by 
this  gloomy  faith — how,  even  in  moments  when  I  have 
been  joyfully  welcoming  the  pure  beams  of  the  Sun 
of  Righteousness,  its  dark  cloud  has  frightened  me 
from  afar,  its  low,  muttered  tones  of  thunder  have 
reached  my  ears,  like  a  sound  foreboding  evil — you 
would  not  think  my  language  impassioned.  Be  it  so 
or  not,  it  is  just  as  I  feel. 

My  religion  is  my  all.  Without  it,  what  should  I 
be,  or  what  should  I  do  1  Without  it,  how,  in  my  early 
years,  could  I  have  borne  the  changes  and  sorrows 
which  have  fallen  to  my  lot?  I  love  my  religion 
dearly,  for  it  has  been  emphatically  my  friend.  Then, 
if  I  have  been  able  conscientiously  to  give  np  all  that 
was  dark  and  debasing  about  it,  while  I  keep  all  that 
is  bright  and  elevating,  how  can  I  be  too  thankful? 
How  can  I  speak  too  strongly?  I  sometimes  wonder 
why,  before  I  had  proved  the  all-sustaining  power  of 
religion  in  my  own  experience,  I  did  not  give  way  to 
skepticism,  and  become  the  victim  of  infidelity.  T 
cannot  but  remember  the  shocking  doubts  which 
sometimes  found  their  way  into  my  mind;  doubts 
11 


122  MY   FORMER    FAITH. 

which  sometimes  made  me  miserable  for  weeks 
together.  Rebellious  and  unworthy  thoughts  of  God, 
my  heavenly  Father  and  Friend ;  how  they  used  to 
haunt  and  torture  me !  They  grew  out  of  my  creed. 
To  a  person  of  my  "  mental  constitution,"  if  I  thought 
about  it  at  all,  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  I  could  not 
teach  myself  to  reconcile  contradictions.  I  could  not 
school  myself  to  receive,  what  always  seemed  to  me, 
absurdities.  I  never  examined  them  deeply.  I  tried 
to  believe  them,  but  tried  without  success;  or,  at 
most,  it  was  a  strange  sort  of  belief,  against  my  better 
judgment. 

It  was  an  extorted  faith.  1  feared  to  believe  other- 
wise. And  soon  the  time  came,  when,  under  the  pres- 
sure of  deep  affliction,  religion  became  absolutely 
necessary  to  me.  I  clung,  therefore,  to  the  practical 
and  truthful,  shutting  my  eyes  upon  all  the  rest.  I 
have,  indeed,  endeavored  to  indoctrinate  myself — to 
understand  what  I  thought  I  must  believe,  and  to  fill 
my  mind  with  arguments  for  that  belief;  but  I  never 
before  now  thoroughly  examined  the  question,  whether 
those  opinions  were  true.  I  never  myself,  and  I  con- 
fess it  with  sorrow,  brought  them  meekly  to  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony,  to  judge,  by  my  own  reason, 
whether  they  could  be  found  there.  I  was  afraid  to 
doubt.  And  in  regard  to  the  Trinity,  I  did  not 
doubt  till  lately. 

And  I  verily  thought  that  Unitarians  had  scarcely 
any  religion  at  all.  I  shrank  with  fear  at  the  idea  of 
attending  one  of  their  churches  on  the  Sabbath  day. 
It  seemed  almost  immorality  to  read  one  of  their  books. 
1  knew  and  loved  some  of  them,  but  I  pitied  their  delu- 
sions, and  wondered  how  they  could  be  so  blinded. 
The  subject  of  our  religious  differences  was  generally 


BLESSING    OF    FREEDOM.  123 

carefully  avoided,  or  I  might  have  discovered  that  I 
was  doing  them  sad  injustice.  I  fear  my  inclination 
was  to  say  to  every  Unitarian,  "  stand  by  thyself,  for 
I  am  holier  than  thou."  I  fear  I  often  prayed  in  my 
heart  the  prayer  of  the  Pharisee,  saying,  "God,  I 
thank  thee  that  I  am  not  as  other  men  are,  or  even  as 
this  poor  Unitarian."  This  is  the  legitimate  result  of 
Calvinism.  I  find  that  all  rigid  Calvinists  are  exceed- 
ingly exclusive  in  their  creed,  if  not  in  their  natural 
feelings. 

Ah,  my  dear  Sir,  I  have  endured  the  tyranny  of  this 
faith  too  long  not  to  dislike  it  now.  I  have  heard  of 
those  who  had  endured  captivity  so  long,  that  it  had 
become  a  second  nature  to  them,  and  was  preferred  to 
liberty.  I  have  heard  of  the  captive,  who,  when 
released,  sighed  for  his  bonds  again.  The  glorious 
light  of  the  unclouded  sun  was  painful  to  his  eye ;  the 
free  air  of  heaven  seemed  to  visit  his  cheek  too 
roughly;  the  noise  and  turmoil  of  the  busy  world 
oppressed  and  distracted  him.  Poor,  pitiable  wreck 
of  humanity  !  Who  would  wish  to  be  like  him  1  In 
consequence  of  suffering,  to  become  so  inured  to  it  as 
actually  to  prefer  it  to  ease,  and  to  restraint,  as  to 
prefer  it  to  liberty !  I  do  not  thus  love  my  chains. 
God  made  us  for  freedom — God  made  us  for  happi- 
ness ;  and  sadly  to  be  pitied  is  he  who  does  not  prize 
his  liberty  and  happiness.  He  has  lost  the  image  of 
his  God.  He  is  scarcely  a  man.  He  is  but  little 
better  than  the  brutes  that  perish. 

For  my  part,  I  thank  God  that  I  am  free.  I  breathe 
the  air  of  religions  liberty,  and  it  revives  my  soul.  I 
raise  my  unshackled  hands  in  gratitude  to  Heaven,  and 
sing  aloud  for  joy.  But  still  I  remember  the  struggle 
— the  conflict  between  light  and  darkness — the  despair- 


124  BLESSING   OF    FREEDOM. 

ing  avowal  of  a  belief  which  was  revolting  to  my 
very  soul ;  it  was  wormwood  and  gall ;  my  soul  hath 
it  iu  remembrance. 

My  eyes  are  now  opened  to  behold  the  truth,  and 
beauty,  and  symmetry,  of  another  faith  than  yours,  and 
not  all  your  declarations  and  bold  assertions  can  turn 
what  I  behold,  into  what  you  assert  it  to  be.  Show  me 
another  scheme  of  faith,  and  let  me  compare  it  with 
the  Bible,  but  do  not  attempt  to  frighten  me  by  hard 
names  and  dark  pictures  of  your  own  creation.  It  is 
easy  to  dress  up  a  hideous  figure,  and  call  it  Unitari- 
anism,  but  those  who  are  choosing  for  eternity  will 
not  be  very  readily  deceived  by  any  such  imaginary 
creation. 


LETTER   XVII, 


SIGNS  OF  THE  TIMES. 
MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

I  PERFECTLY  agree  with  you  when  you  remark 
that  "  the  world  is  uneasy,"  that  "  the  spirit  of  God 
moves  upon  the  troubled  waters  of  life."  It  is  even 
so.  The  world  is  indeed  uneasy,  and  I  am  glad  of 
it.  We  ought  to  be  uneasy;  there  is  cause  enough 
for  it.  Light  has  been  breaking  in  upon  us,  every 
science  has  been  advancing,  the  civilized  world  has 
made  rapid  strides  in  every  kind  of  knowledge,  the 
all-important  science  of  biblical  criticism  has  received 
special  attention,  and  new  light  has  been  thrown 
upon  various  passages  of  the  sacred  word,  and  yet 
our  minds  are  to  be  fettered  and  tied  down  to  the 
creeds  and  formularies  given  to  our  ancestors  long, 
long  ago.  An  alarm  is  sounded  the  moment  men 
begin  to  interpret  the  Bible  for  themselves.  Let  them 
be  ever  so  conscientious,  let  them  be  ever  so  anxious 
to  avoid  error,  let  them  love  the  Bible  ever  so  well, 
they  are  denounced  the  moment  they  presume  to  read 
the  Bible  with  their  own  eyes.  In  what  respect  does 
this  differ  from  that  religion  which  entirely  withholds 
the  Bible  from  the  people?  I  do  not  want  the  Bible, 
unless  I  can  read  and  understand  it  for  myself.  Why 
11* 


126  SIGNS   OF    THE   TIMES. 

should,  I  take  the  trouble  to  "search  the  Scriptures," 
when  others  are  to  decide  for  me  just  what  they 
mean,  and  just  as  they  please?  But  it  is  too  late  in 
the  day  for  this.  People  will  think  for  themselves, 
let  it  be  ever  so  dangerous  to  themselves,  let  it  be  ever 
so  disagreeable  or  alarming  to  others.  And  whenever 
a  disposition  is  shown  to  curb  this  spirit  of  free 
inquiry,  it  is  time  to  be  uneasy. 

I  am  rejoiced  that  the  human  mind  is  awaking 
from  the  sleep  of  ages.  Very  gradually  has  it  been 
arousing  itself  from  its  lethargy ;  like  the  sluggard  it 
has  said,  "a  little  more  sleep,  a  little  more  slumber, 
a  little  more  folding  of  the  hands  to  sleep;"  but 
now,  to  some  extent,  it  seems  thoroughly  awake. 
Let  us  all  strive  to  give  this  awakened  intellect  a 
right  direction.  Let  those  who  value  the  Bible  as  the 
greatest  of  their  blessings,  teach  others  to  value  it  also. 
Let  us  all  go  to  that  fountain  of  truth,  and  earnestly 
endeavor  to  fill  ourselves  with  its  spirit  and  with  its 
truth.  Let  us  cling  to  that  blessed  book  as  to  our 
only  hope.  But  oh,  let  us  not  endeavor  to  lull  the 
human  mind  to  sleep  again  by  that  old  monotonous 
cry  which  you  are  sounding  even  now  in  my  ears — 
the  cry  of  mystery — mystery.  You  remark  that, 
"the  minds  of  few  persons  are  unexercised;  those 
whom  God  has  chosen  are  strengthened  and  built 
up  in  the  great  mystery  of  godliness ;  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached 
unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received 
up  into  glory."  Now,  I  say,  let  each  mind  judge  for 
itself  what  is  that  mystery  of  godliness,  of  which  the 
Bible  speaks.  Let  each  one  gather  from  the  Bible 
how  it  was  that  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh. 
That  this  was  the  fact,  we  all  alike  believe. 


1    TIM.    III.    16.  127 

You  are  perhaps  aware,  that  the  text  just  quoted 
should  not  read  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  but  that 
Griesbach,  whose  authority  is  universally  acknowl- 
edged by  Trinitarians  as  well  as  others,  has  decided 
that  the  word  God,  in  this  passage,  is  not  to  be  found 
in  the  best  ancient  manuscripts.  In  his  edition  of  the 
New  Testament,  he  expresses  it,  "  great  is  the  mystery 
of  godliness;  He  who  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  &c." 
In  regard  to  this  text,  Sir  Isaac  Newton  says,  "  What 
the  Latins  have  done  to  the  foregoing,*  the  Greeks 
have  done  to  that  of  St.  Paul.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  For  by 
changing  o  into  ©c,  the  abbreviation  of  0eoc,  they  now 
read,  'Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness;  GOD  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh.'  Whereas  all  the  churches  for  the 
first  four  or  five  hundred  years,  and  the  authors  of  all 
the  ancient  versions,  Jerome,  as  well  as  the  rest,  read, 
'Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness,  which  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh.'  *  *  *  With4he  ancienter  versions 
agree  the  writers  of  the  first  five  centuries,  both  Greeks 
and  Latins.  For  they,  in  all  their  discourses  to  prove 
the  deity  of  the  Son,  never  allege  this  text,  that  I  can 
find,  as  they  would  all  have  done,  and  some  of  them 
frequently,  had  they  read  '  God  manifested  in  the  flesh,' 
and  therefore  they  read  6'.  *  *  *  In  all  the  times  of 
the  hot  and  lasting  Arian  controversy,  it  never  came 
into  play;  though,  now  those  disputes  are  over,  they 
that  read  '  God  manifested  in  the  flesh,'  think  it  one  of 
the  most  obvious  and  pertinent  texts  for  the  business." 
— {Sir  Isaac  Newton's  History  of  Two  Corruptions  of 
Scripture.} 

But  why,  my  dear  Sir,  are  you  such  a  friend  to 
mystery?  Why  do  you  not  endeavor  to  enforce  it 
upon  the  minds  of  all  that  the  religion  of  the  gospel  is 

*  Alluding  to  that  well  known  interpolation,  1st  John  v.  7. 


MYSTERY. 

so  plain  and  simple,  that  the  "  wayfaring  man,  though 
a  fool,  shall  not  err  therein?"  It  is  because  men  have 
not  been  contented  with  what  is  plain  and  simple  in 
religion,  but  have  constructed  an  elaborate  system  of 
perplexities  which  they  wish  to  force  upon  all  mankind, 
upon  the  peril  of  losing  their  title  to  the  name  of  Chris- 
tian. Religion,  as  it  is  taught  by  Orthodox  creeds,  is 
anything  but  plain  and  simple.  It  cannot  be  under- 
stood ;  and  the  only  remedy  I  ever  heard  prescribed 
for  those  whose  perplexities  have  made  them  sick  at 
heart,  is  to  receive  it  all  as  a  sacred  mystery,  not  to  be 
rashly  inquired  into,  or  rather,  not  to  be  inquired  into 
at  all.*  Orthodox  Christianity  is  full  of  perplexities 
and  metaphysical  distinctions,  utterly  incomprehensi- 
ble to  plain,  unlettered  men ;  this,  it  appears  to  me,  is 
not  the  religion  of  the  Bible. 

I  have  scarcely  received  a  letter  in  which  this  text 
concerning  the  mystery  of  godliness,  incorrectly  trans- 
lated as  it  is,  has  not  been  strenuously  urged  upon  me  ; 
and  after  quoting  it  yourself,  you  thus  proceed  :  "  But 
there  are  those  who  will  not  believe  that  God  has  any 
mystery  which  cannot  be  fathomed  by  their  finite 
reason,  and  who  plunge  without  compass  or  rudder 
into  that  ocean  which  is  boundless,  and  where,  losing 
all  landmarks,  they  are  driven  either  to  the  abject 
submission  of  the  Romanists,  or  else  abandon  them- 
selves to  the  delusive  fancies  of  the  German  Geologists, 
and  the  thousand  forms  of  skepticism  which  are  as 
various  as  the  human  countenance;  in  fact,  to  that 
natural  religion,  which  is  indeed  no  religion  at  all,  but 
the  mere  fancies  of  unguided  imagination,  or  the  bor- 
rowed light  of  gospel  morality." 

This  is  severe  enough.     But  because  I  cannot  be- 

*  See  Dehon's  Sermons,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  99, 100.    See  also  Appendix  P. 


MYSTERIES    NOT    CONTRADICTIONS.  129 

lieve  some  things  which  you  call  mysteries,  and  which 
you  say  are  revealed  in  the  Bible,  but  which  I  call 
contradictions,  and  which  I  think  are  not  revealed  in 
the  Bible,  why  should  you  take  it  for  granted  that  I 
am  not  willing  to  receive  anything  which  my  finite 
understanding  cannot  perfectly  fathom?  I  protest  also 
against  the  common  method  of  confounding  contradic- 
tory propositions  with  mysteries,  which  only  mean 
secret  things — things  which  we,  from  some  cause  or 
other,  do  not  or  cannot  know.  I  am  very  willing  to 
admit,  that  there  are  mysteries — secret  things — which 
I  cannot  comprehend,  and  which  yet,  as  matters  of 
fact,  I  fully  believe.  It  has  been  revealed  to  me  that 
my  soul  is  to  exist  hereafter;  in  this  fact  I  fully 
believe.  Even  the  fact  was  once  a  mystery,  but  the 
secret  is  revealed ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  a  mystery 
no  longer.  What  became  of  the  soul  after  death,  we 
well  know  was  a  most  perplexing  mystery  till  life  and 
immortality  were  brought  to  light  in  the  gospel.  But 
the  exact  mode  of  its  existence — where  it  will  be,  how 
it  will  be  engaged — is  still  a  mystery.  Because  it  has 
not  been  revealed,  it  must  therefore  remain  a  mystery 
till  experience  or  some  further  revelation  teaches  each 
individual  soul  how  and  where  it  will  exist  hereafter. 
Now,  so  far  as  God  has  revealed  anything  to  us 
concerning  his  Son,  so  far  the  mystery  is  removed. 
What  he  has  not  revealed,  we  should  not  attempt  to 
explain.  It  is  revealed  to  us  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
sent  into  the  world  to  save  sinners ;  that  he  was  sent 
by  the  Father ;  and  that  he  was  the  brightness  of  the 
Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person. 
"But  it  is  not  revealed  that  he  who  sent  and  he  who  was 
sent  are  the  same  Being ;  that  there  are  three  distinct 
persons  in  one  God;  that  one  of  these  persons  pos- 


130       ,  EXTRACT    FROM    ROBINSO.V. 

sessed  two  distinct  natures ;  none  of  these  things  are 
told  us  in  the  Bible,  and  they  are  directly  opposed  to 
all  our  ideas  of  individual  identity.  They  are  some- 
thing more  than  mysteries;  to  us,  they  are  contra- 
dictions; and  they  ought  to  be  distinctly  laid  down  in 
the  Bible  before  we  can  be  expected  to  believe  them. 
But  such  a  thing,  I  believe,  cannot  be ;  for  a  revelation 
from  God  cannot  contain  contradictions. 

It  is  very  much  the  practice  of  Trinitarians,  when 
pressed  with  the  consequences  of  their  doctrines,  con- 
stantly to  place  things  which  are  above  human  compre- 
hension, and  things  contrary  to  human  reason  and 
experience,  exactly  on  the  same  level.  It  is  the  never 
failing  resort;  but  it  must  be  a  weak  and  credulous 
mind,  indeed,  which  cannot  perceive  the  difference.  I 
do  not  think  this  is  right,  I  do  not  think  it  fair.  In  this 
way  you  strive  to  narrow  down  my  mind,  to  restrain 
it  within  the  limits  of  your  creed,  when  it  seeks  en- 
largement, and  longs  to  feed  itself  upon  the  word  of 
God,  to  attain  to  one  degree  of  light  after  another. 

On  the  subject  of  mysteries,  the  excellent  Robert 
Robinson,  who  wrote  towards  the  close  of  the  last 
century,  thus  remarks:  "Christianity,  say  some,  is 
often  called  a  mystery,  or  a  secret ;  even  the  text  calls 
it  so.  (Eph.  iii.  4.)  True,  but  the  same  text  says, 
Paul  kneiv  this  secret,  and  the  Ephesians  might  under- 
stand what  he  knew  of  it,  if  they  would  read  what  he 
wrote  to  them.  When  ye  read,  he  says,  ye  may 
understand  my  knowledge  in  the  mystery  of  Christ." 

So  Paul,  in  speaking  of  the  mystery  of  godliness,  in 
the  text  on  which  we  have  been  commenting,  was 
conferring  with  Timothy  in  regard  to  the  great  secret, 
the  good  news,  the  mystery  of  the  faith,  which  they 
both  knew,  and  which  Timothy  was  to  reveal  to  those 


ON    MYSTERIES.  131 

to  whom  he  was  sent  to  preach.  But  this  great  secret 
was  simple,  was  plain,  when  it  was  revealed — so 
plain,  that  he  who  runs  may  read ;  the  gospel  was  for 
the  poor,  the  ignorant,  as  well  as  the  learned. 

But,  says  Robinson,  "  we  perceive  a  wonderful 
inclination  in  Christians  towards  something  in  religion, 
so  sublime  as  not  to  be  understood ;  whereas  the  true 
sublimity  of  religion  lies  in  its  plainness,  as  the  true 
excellence  and  dignity  of  man  consist  in  his  becom- 
ing such  a  plain  man  as  Jesus  Christ  was.  This 
inclination  is  a  remnant  of  the  old  education  given  by 
monks  and  priests,  whose  majesty  stood  in  the  credu- 
lousness  of  their  followers.  They  made  creeds,  or 
articles  to  be  believed,  and  gave  them  to  our  fore- 
fathers to  say  over.  You  do  not  understand  them, 
said  they,  but  we  do ;  and,  while  they  were  doing  that, 
the  creed-makers  ran  away  with  their  houses  and 
lands.  Let  us  renounce  this  disposition,  and  let  us 
believe  nothing  but  what  we  understand." 

"Alas!"  he  exclaims,  "we  are  not  employed  now- 
a-days  in  examining  and  choosing  religious  principles 
for  ourselves,  but  in  subscribing  and  defending  those 
of  our  ancestors." 


.«*»*3**r- 


LETTER  XVIII. 


AN  EXTRACT. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

I  BELIEVE  that  you  speak  the  real  feelings  of  your 
heart  when  you  say,  that  you  "  sincerely  and  prayer- 
fully mourn"  that  I  should  be  "a  victim"  to  what 
you  deem  a  "  strong  delusion"  and  "  a  lie."  And  you 
say,  "I  mourn  the  more  that  your  constitutional 
romance  of  disposition  seems  to  make  your  case  the 
more  hopeless.  You  pursue  with  martyr  spirit  the 
abstract  idea  of  Truth,  or  else  you  would  be  in  no 
hurry  to  proclaim  your  adherence  to  Anti-Christ,  when 
you  know  you  must  harrow  the  feelings  of  all  your 
friends,  and  are  taking  a  step  which  may  bring  your 
honored  and  aged  father  in  sorrow  to  his  tomb,  or  to 
exclaim  with  the  Psalmist,  'O  that  I  had  died  for 
thee.' " 

I  am  deeply  pained  and  grieved,  my  dear  Sir,  that 
any  of  my  friends  should  be  offended  with  me  for  ven- 
turing to  follow  the  dictates  of  my  conscience;  but 
my  grief  and  pain  are  entirely  unmixed  with  any  feel- 
ings of  self-reproach.  If,  when  we  appear  together  at 
the  bar  of  God,  they  could  assume  my  responsibility ; 
if  I  were  very  sure  of  this,  I  might  feel  willing  to  sub- 
scribe to  just  what  my  friends  assert  to  be  the  truth  of 


ABSTRACT    TRUTH.  133 

the  Bible.  But  I  am  afraid  to  do  this.  Who,  of  all 
my  numerous  friends,  will  take  the  responsibility  7 
Who  will  ensure  my  safety,  if  I  give  up  my  own 
opinion,  and  subscribe  to  theirs?  Will  you  do  it? 
Alas !  I  fear  I  shall  find  no  such  convenient  friend. 
God  knows  that  I  am  able  to  form  some  opinion  for 
myself;  he  likewise  knows  that  I  think  it  wrong  not 
to  do  this  to  the  extent  of  the  abilities  he  has  given 
me ;  and  he  certainly  will,  and  he  certainly  ought  to 
punish  me  if  I  do  it  not. 

In  regard  to  truth,  you  go  on  to  say:  "  Truth  in  its 
abstract  has  always  been  an  idol  with  visionaries. 
The  unclouded  mind  views  it  as  a  good  only  by  its 
consequences.  When  you  speak  of  the  Truth  of  God 
as  necessary  to  eternal  happiness,  I  can  understand  it ; 
when  truth  is  divulged  which  will  add  to  our  tem- 
poral ease,  I  can  appreciate  its  value ;  but  if  I  hear  a 
man  proclaim  and  devote  himself  to  a  truth  in  physics 
which  he  acknowledges  can  be  of  no  practical  value, 
or  an  atheist  worshipping  as  an  idol  his  ideal  creed, 
while  admitting  that  at  the  worst  the  Christian  will 
suffer  no  more  than  he,  I  place  them  both  in  the  same 
category  of  visionary  and  senseless  dreamers.  Now, 
let  me  ask  you,  if  you  believe  any  soul  ever  went  to 
hell,  or  ever  will,  for  believing  Christ  to  be  God? 
Supposing  it  then  a  delusion,  what  good  will  you 
effect  by  a  hasty  avowal  of  sentiments  which  can  add 
no  security  to  a  soul,  and  may  shake  the  safety  of 
some,  and  will  turn  the  joy  of  many  into  mourning, 
their  smiles  into  tears  ?  How  many  '  passing  under 
the  rod,'  and  soothed  and  comforted  by  your  muse, 
will  feel  they  have  tasted  but  the  bitter  ashes  of  the 
fabled  fruit ;  have  been  lured  from  their  grief  by  a 
falsity,  and  comforted  by  a  fraud  !  To  return  to  that 
12 


134  ERRONEOUS   PREMISES. 

word  Truth.  If  Paul  had  died  to  prove  his  faith  in 
Christ  with  the  noble  hope  of  saving  souls,  that  would 
indeed  be  an  object  worthy  of  the  sacrifice.  But  sup- 
pose he  had  died  to  prove  what  is  equally  true,  that 
prussic  acid  is  poison,  and  for  no  other  end  than  the 
establishment  of  the  fact;  he  would  have  been  justly 
called  a  madman.  Do  you  take  my  illustration  and 
distinction  ?  Such  is  your  case  in  avowing  your  new 
creed." 

I  am  no  metaphysician,  and  very  little  of  a  logician, 
and  therefore,  for  the  life  of  me,  I  cannot  appreciate 
the  soundness  of  your  argument,  or  the  justness  of  the 
parallel  you  have  drawn  between  Paul's  supposed 
case,  and  my  real  one.  If  St.  Paul  had  been  required 
to  subscribe  to  a  creed  asserting  that  prussic  acid  was 
no  poison;  if  he  felt  that  he  was  tacitly  acknowl- 
edging before  the  world  what  he  believed  to  be  untrue 
every  time  he  joined  in  a  prayer  or  sang  a  hymn, 
every  time  he  took  his  seat  with  his  brethren  as  a 
member  of  their  fraternity,  every  time,  especially,  he 
sang  a  doxology ;  if,  moreover,  he  was  of  the  opinion 
that  the  general  belief  in  regard  to  prussic  acid  was 
producing  general  evil;  then  I  think  our  cases  would 
have  been  parallel  cases,  and  it  clearly  seems  to  me  it 
would  have  been  his  duty  to  do  as  I  have  done. 

If  he  had  joined  a  society  whose  fundamental  article 
of  faith  was  that  prussic  acid  was  no  poison ;  if  he  had 
been  generally  and  prominently  known  as  a  member 
of  that  society,  and  if  he  discovered  that  prussic  acid 
icas  a  poison,  and  thought,,  moreover,  that  the  society 
were  doing  harm,  then  he  would  have  been  bound  to 
leave  them,  and  to  say  why  he  did  it;  especially  if 
they  would  not  allow  him  to  withdraw  quietly,  which 
the  members  of  such  societies,  and  communities  in 


ERRONEOUS    PREMISES.  135 

general,  are  not  very  apt  to  do.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  had  been  no  such  society  in  the  world,  and  the 
general  belief  that  prussic  acid  was  no  poison  had 
been  perfectly  harmless,  Paul  would  indeed  have  been 
a  fool  and  a  madman  to  volunteer  to  die  for  such  a  fact ; 
but  I  do  not  see  how  there  could  have  been  the  least 
occasion  for  his  death.  It  is  only  when  tests  are  required 
of  men  that  they  are  in  any  danger  of  losing  their  lives 
for  opinion's  sake. 

Your  argument  is  founded  upon  what  I  deem  ex- 
ceedingly erroneous  premises,  and  therefore  it  is  no 
argument  to  me.  In  the  first  place,  you  take  it  for 
granted  that  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  supreme 
divinity,  and  consequently  in  that  of  the  Trinity,  is, 
if  a  delusion,  a  perfectly  harmless  one ;  to  this  I  do  not 
agree.  I  think,  as  I  have  before  said,  that  the  habit  of 
assenting  to  contradictory  propositions,  such  as  that 
three  are  one,  and  that  the  finite  and  the  infinite  meet 
in  the  same  individual,  is  a  habit  most  injurious  to  the 
mind,  and  leads  either  to  credulity  or  infidelity.  It 
opens  a  spacious  door  for  every  absurdity.  These 
doctrines  are  as  contradictory  to  reason  as  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation.  They  are  quite  as  contrary  to 
our  experience.  So  far,  then,  we  do  not  agree  in  the 
premises  from  which  we  start. 

You  make  no  distinction,  in  the  second  place,  be- 
tween one  who  is  ignorantly  subscribing  to  an  error, 
and  one  who  does  it,  knowing  or  believing  it  to  be  an 
error.  Here  is  a  radical  distinction,  which  ought  not 
to  have  been  lost  sight  of.  If  my  mind  had  never 
been  turned  to  the  subject,  and  I  had  lived  and  died 
worshipping  Christ  as  the  Supreme  God,  I  should  have 
been  perhaps  guiltless;  my  error  would  have  been 
involuntary ;  but  the  moment  my  attention  has  been 


136  HUMAN    CREEDS. 

awakened  to  the  point,  and,  upon  thorough  investiga- 
tion, I  have  decided  that  it  is  an  error,  my  moral  atti- 
tude is  changed.*  If,  under  my  new  circumstances,  I 
still  remained  connected  with  a  church  which  I  knew 
would  not  receive  me  if  they  imagined  what  was  my 
belief  in  regard  to  Christ;  if  I  still  continued  to  sit 
with  them  at  the  Lord's  table  when  I  was  certain 
they  would  shut  me  out  if  they  knew  my  sentiments, 
should  I  not  be  acting  the  part  of  a  hypocrite  ?  I 
leave  the  decision  to  every  candid  mind.  If  you  do 
not  agree  to  this,  I  can  only  say  your  code  of  ethics  is 
very  different  from  mine. 

If  there  were  no  hitman  creeds  in  the  world — if 
churches  would  only  require  a  belief  in  the  only  infal- 
lible creed,  the  one  which  our  Master  left  us,  which  is 
contained  in  the  Holy  Bible,  and  not  an  assent  to 
this  or  that  interpretation  of  the  original  one, — then  we 
might  keep  our  opinions  to  ourselves.  But  as  the 
church  of  my  fathers,  to  which  I  belonged,  has  a 
human  creed,  and  I  find  I  cannot  conscientiously  as- 
sent to  it,  how  could  I  remain  there,  and  feel  that  I 
was  pursuing  an  honest,  independent  course?  Unless, 
indeed,  they  would  have  allowed  me  to  remain  there 
after  a  candid  confession  of  my  change  of  sentiments, 
and  this  they  could  not  have  done  consistently  with 
their  confession  of  faith.  No  creed  bid  the  Bible,  is 
now  my  motto,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  till  I  die.  And  I 
am  becoming  more  and  more  attached  to  the  simple, 
congregational  mode  of  church  government.  On  this 
point  I  am  rejoiced  to  know  that  you  and  I  perfectly 
agree.  I  am  learning  to  stand  more  and  more  aloof 
from  any  extensive  combination  of  my  fellow-men  for 
religious,  or  for  any  other  purposes.  To  single 
churches  and  single  societies  I  do  not  object;  their 

*  See  Appendix  Q. 


DANGER    OF    COMBINATION.  137 

organization  is  simple,  and  abuses  are  easily  corrected; 
but  the  moment  their  leaders  begin  to  combine,  I  am 
afraid  of  them.  They  wield  a  power  that  is  dangerous. 
Too  much  consolidation  is  never  to  be  desired,  where 
imperfect  man  is  at  the  head  of  affairs.  It  is  not  best 
to  pledge  ourselves  to  bodies,  which,  almost  without 
our  knowledge,  rna.y  carry  us  whither  we  would  not 
wish  to  go.  I  am  well  aware  that  "  union  is  strength ; " 
but  I  am  by  no  means  certain  that  the  strength  result- 
ing from  union  will  always  be  well  directed.  If  I 
were  sure  of  this,  I  would  rejoice  at  the  spirit  of  com- 
bination, which  is  a  striking  feature  of  our  times. 
But,  as  things  are,  such  combinations  are  to  be  ap- 
proached with  caution,  and  always  narrowly  watched. 
They  are  too  often  under  the  entire  control  of  a  few 
leading  spirits,  whose  love  of  power  grows  in  pro- 
portion to  its  acquirement,  and  increases  with  their 
success.*  I  have  seen  melancholy  proofs  that  very 
large  bodies  sometimes  go  wrong  with  an  impetus 
that  is  perfectly  irresistible  and  overwhelming,  crush- 
ing the  feeble  arms  which  are  raised  to  impede  their 
progress,  and  carrying  with  them  even  those  who 
oppose  them,  in  one  general,  headlong,  hurrying 
mass.  Nor  can  they  always  stop  where  they  them- 
selves intended. 

But  to  return  from  this   digression.     I  was  speak- 
ing of  human  creeds.     A  man  who  subscribes  to  a 

*  That  this  was  emphatically  the  case  in  the  general  councils  of  the  church 
in  former  ages,  and  that  it  is  also  true  of  the  general  assemblies,  conventions, 
indeed  of  all  religious  combinations  of  modern  times,  no  one  who  is  much 
acquainted  with  their  history  will  probably  deny.  Thus  the  creeds  which 
we  are  now  required  to  subscribe, — such  as  the  five  Calvinistic  points, 
which  were  drawn  up  at  the  famous  Synod  of  Dort,  were  composed  under 
the  influence  of  party  spirit,  and  adopted  by  the  church  in  consequence  of 
the  votes  of  an  excited  majority. 

12* 


138  AN    EXTRACT   FROM    SPARKS. 

creed  enters  into  a  solemn  covenant.  I  have  been 
accused  of  breaking  my  covenant  engagements.  I 
have  broken  my  covenant,  it  is  true.  I  entered  into  a 
solemn  engagement  to  support  and  defend  the  doctrines 
held  by  the  church  with  which  I  became  united.  But, 
when  a  person  can  no  longer  believe  what  he  once 
believed,  what  is  he  to  do'.1  Is  belief  a  voluntary 
thing)  Can  a  person  believe  just  what  he  chooses? 
How  can  I  help  believing  that  which  I  am  convinced 
is  true?  The  moment  a  man  is  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  any  opinion,  or  set  of  opinions,  they  are  his 
opinions.  Persecution,  torture,  may  compel  him  to 
retract  them,  but  they  are  his  opinions  still,  if  he  still 
remains  convinced  of  their  truth.  Fire  and  the  sword 
may  make  him  a  hypocrite,  but  they  cannot  change 
his  opinions. 

When  I  have  before  me  evidence  which  convinces 
me  that  what  I  once  thought  true  is  not  true,  can  I 
still  believe  it  ?  And  if  I  cannot  still  believe  it,  ought 
I  still  to  profess  it  ?  Alas  for  the  man  who  binds 
himself  to  support  a  human  creed;  a  creed  prepared 
by  uninspired  men  !  He  may  be  placing  himself  in  a 
melancholy  position.  I  cannot  more  vividly  portray 
his  situation  than  by  quoting  the  words  of  the  Rev. 
Jared  Sparks.  He  says :  "  Those  persons  who  have 
bound  themselves  to  a  written  system  of  faith,  in  the 
shape  of  a  creed  or  confession,  which  they  are  resolved 
never  to  forsake,  or  which  they  engage  by  a  solemn 
covenant  always  to  support,  as  in  the  case  of  many 
clergymen,  church-members,  and  professors  in  theolo- 
gical institutions;  such  persons  cannot  possibly  expect 
or  hope  to  gain  anything  by  examining  their  opinions, 
and  comparing  them  with  those  of  others,  and  with 
the  standard  of  the  Scriptures.  To  change  a  single 


ON  vows.  139 

sentiment  would  be  a  violation  of  their  covenant,  and 
a  crime.  What  conscientious  man  will  allow  the 
suspicion  to  enter  his  mind  that  anything  can  be 
wrong  in  a  faith,  which,  in  the  most  solemn  manner, 
he  has  pledged  his  veracity  to  cherish  and  support? 
He  may  defend  his  adopted  creed,  and  rally  round 
the  system  to  which  he  is  chained,  but  he  cannot 
go  a  step  further.  He  cannot  open  his  mind  to  a 
new  truth,  nor  suffer  himself  to  concede,  that  an 
opponent's  argument  can  have  any  weight,  or  his 
opinions  any  claim  to  respect.  This  would  be  to 
distrust  the  grounds  of  his  faith,  and  to  betray  the 
guilt  of  doubting,  where  he  has  made  a  sacred  en- 
gagement never  to  doubt.  What  advantage  can  a 
person,  thus  bound  and  cramped,  derive  from  an  ex- 
amination of  religious  subjects?  The  public  may  be 
benefited  by  knowing  his  sentiments,  and  his  mode  of 
explaining  and  defending  them ;  but  as  for  himself,  his 
journey  will  be  a  circle,  he  will  end  where  he  began." 

Is  it  a  question  what  one  who  has  thus  bound 
himself,  perhaps  inadvertently,  and  who  afterwards 
changes  his  opinions,  is  to  do  ?  Can  it  be  a  question 
whether  he  ought  to  break  his  vow,  or  act  the  hypo- 
crite ?  Is  not  a  vow,  which  we  find  to  be  a  bad  one, 
better  broken  than  kept?  Each  man  must  decide  this 
question  for  himself. 

This  fact  is  certain,  that  such  vows  are  too  often 
taken  without  sufficient  thought.  Such  vows  are 
fearful  things.  Would  to  God  I  had  never  taken 
them ;  and  1  would  sound  a  note  of  warning  in  the 
ears  of  all  those  who  are  still  free.  I  beseech  them  to 
take  care  how  they  promise  to  maintain  and  defend 
any  creed  that  is  not  expressed  in  the  very  words  of 
the  Bible,  the  only  infallible  standard. 


LETTER  XIX. 


TRUTH  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES. 
Mr  DEAR  SIR  : 

I  CONFESS  I  have  not  sufficient  mental  acumen  to 
understand  your  meaning  when  you  attempt  to  separ- 
ate Truth  from  its  consequences.  How  can  the  con- 
sequences of  Truth,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  be 
beneficial  to  us,  unless  we  possess  the  Truth  itself? 
How  can  there  be  effects  without  a  cause  ?  It  is  very 
evident  that  somebody  must  possess  the  knowledge  of 
a  truth  before  it  can  affect  anybody.  You  will  grant 
that,  perhaps.  But  I  may  discover,  by  some  chance 
or  other,  that  somebody  is  mistaken;  and  then  I  can 
no  longer  say  that  I  believe  that  person's  opinions  to 
be  true.  I  know  that  I  may  be  exposing  to  you  my 
want  of  metaphysical  acuteness,  but  I  cannot  help  it. 
I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  thinking  that  Truth  itself — 
Truth  in  the  abstract — was  essentially  important ;  but 
this  may  be  one  of  those  old-fashioned  notions  which 
are  now  nearly  obsolete.  You  have  not  yet  convinced 
me,  however,  that  I  was  mistaken  in  this  old-fashioned 
adherence  to  truth. 

You  have  alluded  to  my  volume  of  poems,  written 
especially  for  the  afflicted,  or  I  would  not  allude  to 
them  myself.  You  say  that  those  whom  they  have 


GOD    OUR    SAVIOUR.  141 

comforted  will  find  that  "  they  have  been  lured  from 
their  grief  by  a  falsity,  and  comforted  by  a  fraud!" 
How  can  that  be?  The  blessed  truths  which  gave 
them  comfort  are  there  still.  The  volume  consists  of 
a  detail  of  the  real  experience  of  one  on  whom  the 
hand  of  God  was  heavily  laid;  and  I  do  not  see  how 
any  change  of  opinion  can  affect  the  fact  that  such 
was  my  experience  then.  My  change  does  not  affect 
the  truth  of  God.  He  has  promised  to  be  with  the 
afflicted;  1  was  afflicted,  oh  how  severely!  and  He 
was  with  me  in  a  most  remarkable  manner.  His 
promise  is  still  held  out  to  the  afflicted,  and  the  record 
of  my  experience  is  still  there.  It  was  no  falsity ;  it 
was  no  fraud ;  and  no  change  of  mine  can  make  it  so. 
This  is  a  delicate  sTibject ;  1  will  pass  it  by  after  a 
moment's  consideration.  It  does  seem  strange  to  me 
that  people  should  not  be  able  to  see  that  Unitarians 
have,  and  profess  to  have,  an  Almighty  Saviour.  GOD 
is  their  Saviour,  through  Christ.  Whatever  God  does 
for  us,  he  does  for  us  through  Christ.  He  is  the 
chosen  medium  of  communication.  Trinitarians  prac- 
tically exalt  Christ  above  the  Father.  Unitarians  go 
to  the  Father,  as  the  Supreme  Being,  through  Christ. 
Another  friend,  speaking  of  the  volume  called  "  The 
Parted  Family,"  writes:  "I  do  not  see  how  you  can 
say  that  the  alteration  of  a  few  expressions  would  make 
the  volume  agree  with  your  present  views.  It  was  the 
Saviour,  God,  who  was  near  you  in  your  affliction ;  at 
least  you  thought  so."  Yes,  I  thought  so  then,  and  I 
think  so  now.  God,  who  is  emphatically  my  Saviour, 
was  near  me  by  the  blessed  influences  of  his  Holy 
Spirit — that  Comforter,  whom  Christ  promised  his 
disciples  that  the  Father  would  send  in  his  name 
Christ  prayed  to  the  Father  for  this  Comforter  for  his 


142         CHRIST'S  WORDS  THOSE  OF  THE  FATHER. 

beloved  disciples,  and  his  prayer  was  granted.  We 
cannot  know  exactly  the  manner  in  which  God  com- 
forts us;  but  if  he  does  it,  that,  to  us,  is  all-sufficient. 
God  says  to  his  people,  "besides  me  there  is  no 
Saviour."  The  same  friend  writes,  "I  read  your 
book  of  poems,  through  one  night  with  many  tears; 
read  it  yourself,  and  believe  ! " 

Another  writes,  "Once  let  it  be  known  that  the 
author  of  'The  Parted  Family'  has  become  a  Unita- 
rian, and  all  is  lost."  Another  says,  "how  little  did 
I  think,  when  reading  your  touching  account  of  the 
wonderful  manner  in  which  you  were  sustained  and 
comforted  in  your  hour  of  need,  and  with  what  sweet 
reliance  you  leaned  upon  the  promises  of  the  Saviour, 
and  found  peace ;  that  you  wftuld  ever  wish  to  take 
from  him  any  of  his  glory,  or  deny  him  his  divinity." 
Do  my  friends  think  that  the  delightful  promises  which 
Jesus  made  to  his  disciples  are  now  expunged  from  my 
Bible?  And  if  I  believe  that  he  came  from  the  Father 
with  divine  power  and  authority,  are  not  those  prom- 
ises the  same  to  me  as  the  promises  of  the  Father  him- 
self? Assuredly  they  are.  Christ  said  expressly  to 
his  disciples,  "the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  I  speak 
not  of  myself;" — "all  things  that  /  have  heard  of  the 
Father  I  have  made  known  unto  you;" — "the  word 
which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the  Father's  which  sent 
me ;" — "  I  have  not  spoken  of  myself,  but  the  Father 
which  sent  me ;  he  gave  me  a  commandment  what  I 
should  say,  and  what  I should  speak ;" — "as  the  Father 
hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things;" — "I  have  many 
things  to  say — I  speak  to  the  world  those  things  which 
I  have  heard  of  him."  Can  any  declarations  be  more 
explicit?  Christ  over  and  over  again  denies  speaking 
anything  of  himself.  The  promises  of  Christ,  then, 


EXTRACT    AND   REPLY.  143 

came  from  the  Father.  But  have  I  become  an  Atheist, 
that  the  promises  of  GOD  should  be  of  no  account  to 
me?  How  can  any  one  say,  until  he  knows  me  to  be 
an  infidel,  that  those  very  promises  which  supported 
me  then,  do  not  support  me  now  1 

My  pen  trembles  while  I  quote  what  you  next  write, 
but  I  must  do  it,  to  convince  you  that  your  appeal  has 
not  been  overlooked.  You  say:  "Remember  those 
whom  you  have  seen  die,  knowing  their  Saviour  to  be 
their  eternal  God;  think  well,  for  you  are  about  taking 
a  fearful  step.  Let  memory  turn  her  steps  to  the  dying 
bed  of  your  beloved  and  noble  husband,  and  pause  ere 
you  tread  a  road  that  may  not  reach  his  resting-place. 
Think  of  your  child,  now  in  his  Saviour's  arms,  and 
be  sure,  ere  it  be  too  late,  that  that  Saviour  will  have 
room  for  the  mother  who  would  make  him  but  an 
equal.  Think  of  that  holy  man  who  has  just  gone 
to  his  God* — think  of  his  life  of  faith — his  path  of 
purity — his  holy  walk — his  peaceful  death,  and  pause 
before  you  set  all  these  down  to  mere  delusion." 

You  take  for  granted,  my  dear  sir,  many  things 
which  I  utterly  deny  and  repudiate.  God  forbid  that 
I  should  set  down  "to  mere  delusion"  what  I  have 
seen  of  the  life  and  death  of  that  venerable  patriarch, 
who  has  left  behind  him  so  bright  and  holy  an  exam- 
ple— the  best  and  noblest  legacy  he  could  have 
bestowed  on  his  descendants.  He  was  a  conscien- 
tious, holy  man;  his  faith  in  Christ  led  him  closely  to 
imitate  Christ.  However  mistaken  I  may  suppose 
him  to  have  been  in  regard  to  the  metaphysical  ques- 
tion of  Christ's  original  nature,  I  know  that  he  consid- 
ered him  as  coming  with  divine  authority,  and  that 

*  My  venerable  grandfather,  Mr.   Job    Palmer,  who  died   recently  in 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  at  the  advanced  age  of  ninety-seven  years. 


144  EXTRACT   AND    REPLY. 

he  yielded  the  most  cheerful  and  implicit  obedience  to 
the  requirements  of  his  gospel.  His  faith  in  Christ 
then  was  no  "delusion;"  it  was  real;  it  was  an  active, 
living  principle,  which,  I  devoutly  pray,  that  all  his 
descendants  may  possess.  If,  as  he  did,  we  receive 
Christ  as  the  Messiah,  as  a  teacher  sent  from  God — 
and  if  we  live  the  life  that  he  lived,  we  shall  with  him 
sit  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  where  our  "  Fore- 
runner" has  gone  before  us.  I  cannot  trust  myself  to 
d  \vell  upon  the  other  cases  to  which  you  have  so 
touchingly  alluded ;  but  I  hope  you  will  believe  me 
when  I  say,  that  I  have  thought  seriously  and  pain- 
fully upon  my  change  of  opinions  in  connection  with 
their  memory,  and  feeling  and  knowing  as  I  do,  how 
conscientious  I  have  been — how  anxious  for  the  right 
— how  fearful  of  the  wrong — I  firmly  and  joyfully 
believe  that  I  shall  not  be  separated  from  them  when 
I  come  to  die.* 

Your  letter  thus  proceeds:  "I  may  write  in  vain; 
argument  is  the  very  vanity  of  man's  carnal,  petty 
pride;  I  know  it  will  not  avail.  God's  Spirit  alone 
can  teach  the  wondrous  truth  which  is  no  mere  ab- 
straction, but  in  which  are  the  issues  of  life  and  death." 
I  am  very  well  aware  that  this  is  generally  the  ground 
that  is  taken  by  my  friends.  Very  few  of  them  appear 
to  think  it  is  a  matter  which  can  be  argued,  if  I  am  to 
judge  from  the  means  which  they  have  used  to  influ- 
ence me  to  give  up  the  views  I  now  entertain.  But 
how  can  I  give  them  up  till  I  am  convinced  they  are 
untrue?  If  you  will  convince  me,  I  will  joyfully 
renounce  them.  In  taking  the  steps  I  have  recently 
taken,  I  have  had  everything  to  lose,  and  nothing  to 
gain;  that  is,  in  the  eye  of  the  world.  I  have  em- 

*Se«AppendiiR. 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  145 

braced  an  unpopular  faith ;  I  have  placed  myself  in 
the  minority;  I  have  grieved  my  friends;  I  have 
almost  broken  the  hearts  of  my  revered  parents.  If  I 
could  believe  just  what  I  please,  I  would  choose  to 
believe  as  all  my  friends  do ;  that  would  be  far  more 
pleasant  to  me  than  this  wide  difference  of  opinion. 
And  if,  without  falsehood  and  deceit,  I  could  profess 
to  believe  what  I  do  not  regard  as  true,  then  all  this 
would  not  have  taken  place.  But  while  the  human 
mind  remains  what  it  is — while  conviction  and  belief 
go  together,  and  belief  and  profession  must  correspond 
as  they  ought  ever  to  do — I  do  not  see  what  is  to  be 
done,  but  to  let  every  one  believe  and  profess  what  his 
conscience  dictates. 

Moreover,  as  long  as  you  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
truth  in  regard  to  the  Son  of  God  can  be  discovered 
only  through  the  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
operating  on  each  individual  mind ;  and  furthermore, 
that  this  truth  has  certainly  been  revealed  to  you,  and 
those  who  think  as  you  do ;  and  that  all  those  who 
differ  from  you  are  thereby  proved  to  be  without  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  I  do  not  see  how  those  who  are  not  wil- 
ling to  concede  these  things  exclusively  to  you  and 
your  sect,  can  be  influenced  by  your  assertions  as  to 
what  is  truth  and  what  is  not.  /  also  believe  that 
these  things  are  taught  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  that 
Spirit  has  revealed  them  to  us  in  the  Scriptures;  and  I 
believe  that  God  gives  his  Spirit  to  each  individual  who 
asks  for  it  in  the  right  way ;  not  to  discover  to  such  an 
individual  any  new  truth,  not  revealed  in  the  Bible,  but 
to  help  him  to  discern  what  is  there  taught.  Therefore, 
each  individual  must,  with  all  the  aids  he  can  procure, 
go  to  the  Bible  on  his  own  responsibility,  and  discover, 
as  well  as  he  is  able,  what  is  contained  therein.  This 
13 


146  THE    HOLY   SPIRIT. 

doctrine  of  the  special  illumination  of  certain  indi- 
viduals, at  the  present  day,  when  miraculous  gifts 
are  no  longer  bestowed  as  our  infallible  guide,  is  full 
of  danger.  A  man  may  teach  the  most  monstrous 
errors,  and  say  he  is  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  that  we  ought  to  give  him  credit  for  truth 
in  a  matter  of  which  we  cannot  possibly  judge.  But 
I  say,  let  us  depend  upon  no  uninspired  fallible  man 
like  ourselves ;  let  each  one  depend  upon  THE  BIBLE, 
devoutly  and  honestly  seeking  assistance  from  God. 


LETTER    XX, 


ELECTION. 
MY  DEAR  SIR: 

IF  I  held,  as  you  do,  the  Calvinistic  views  of  the 
doctrine  of  Election,  I  should  consider  any  strenuous 
efforts  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  my  friends  as  a  use- 
less waste  of  time,  and  a  profitless  expenditure  of 
strength.  I  cannot  but  believe  that  those  who  hold 
the  doctrines  of  unconditional  election  and  reprobation, 
are  inconsistent,  when  they  mourn  over,  labor,  and 
pray  for  those  whose  fate  is  irrevocably  fixed.  But 
on  this  point,  as  on  many  others,  the  Orthodox  theory 
and  practice  are  essentially  different.  The  doctrine, 
too,  of  the  final  perseverance  of  saints,  as  it  is  called, 
seems  to  give  you,  as  well  as  some  others  among  my 
friends,  a  good  deal  of  comfort.  My  mother  says,  that 
she  is  consoled  by  the  thought  that  I  "have  hereto- 
fore given  good  evidence  of  piety ; "  and  therefore  she 
believes  that  I  will  be  recovered  from  what  she  deems 
my  backslidden  state.  She  thus  expresses  herself; 
"  While  I  am  writing  I  am  comforted  by  the  reflection 
that  you  have  given  evidence  that  you  were  born  of 
God.  If  so,  and  God  grant  it,  he  will  bring  you 
safely  to  his  kingdom  of  glory."  And  you  also  remark, 
"  If  you  are  one  of  his  children,  he  will  yet  pluck  you 
out  of  the  miry  clay,  and  out  of  the  horrible  pit;  and, 


148  FINAL   PERSEVERANCE   OF   SAINTS. 

if  not,  all  we  dare  say  is  to  pray  earnestly  that  he 
may  yet  make  you  the  real  recipient  of  his  gracious 
gift.  I  will  not,  cannot  believe  he  will  abandon  one 
of  the  offspring  of  his  children  to  the  deceitful  delu- 
sions of  human  reason,  and  I  cannot  think  a  descendant 
of  that  holy  man  who  Ijas  just  gone  to  his  rest  will  be 
left  to  perish." 

I  can  easily  perceive,  my  dear  Sir,  how  the  habit  of 
depending  for  salvation  entirely  upon  the  merits  of 
another,  without  regard  to  any  actions  of  our  own, 
has  tinctured  your  whole  mind.  You  evidently  place 
much  dependence  upon  the  fact  of  my  pious  ancestry, 
which,  in  my  view,  so  far  from  being  any  safeguard 
to  me,  adds  fearfully  to  my  responsibility.  Their 
dedication  of  me  to  God  in  infancy,  their  prayers, 
their  efforts,  can  do  nothing  for  me  unless  I  exert  my- 
self. All  piety  is  strictly  personal;  and  my  anxious 
friends,  while  they  pray  for  me,  must  persuade  me  to 
live  a  holy,  Christian  life,  or  all  their  prayers  will  be 
of  no  avail.  I  thank  them  for  their  solicitude,  and  I 
hope  they  will  ever  set  me  such  an  example  of  love  to 
God  and  love  to  man,  of  charity,  meekness,  and  for- 
bearance, that  I  may  be  perfectly  safe  in  following 
their  footsteps  closely,  as  they  follow  Christ. 

But  what  example  of  meekness  is  there  in  the 
extracts  from  your  letter  which  follow  ?  I  can  see 
nothing  but  a  self-righteous  spirit,  mingled  with  a 
great  degree  of  zeal  against  what  you  deem  error.  You 
call  yourself,  and  those  who  agree  with  you  in  merely 
metaphysical  and  speculative  opinions,  "God's  own 
people,"  and  all  others  you  specify  as  belonging  to 
"  Anti-Christ."  This  is  what  you  say :  "  1  am  deeply 
and  fearfully  impressed  with  the  dreadful  truth  of  that 
prophecy  which  denounces  a  woe  upon  those  who 


EXTRACTS.  149 

deny  their  Saviour  as  God,*  and  seek  in  by-paths  to 
avoid  the  simple  way  of  salvation,  so  opposed  to  their 
carnal  natures  only  because  it  is  the  way  of  God's 
appointment. (!)  Anti-Christ  totters  to  her  fall;  but, 
alas  !  her  declining  years  are  too  truly  gilded  with  the 
blood  of  many  erring  souls,  and  her  final  ruin  will 
bury  numbers  dear  to  God's  own  people ;  so  that  the 
very  triumph  of  their  Master  will  be  a  heavy  cross  to 
their  natural  affections.  But  God's  ways  are  not  as 
our  ways.  Once  I  read  the  inspired  book  with  unal- 
loyed pleasure  at  the  evident  promise  of  his  coming ; 
little  did  I  think  the  foretold  precursors  would  be 
among  kindred  and  friends.  I  thought  to  see  Anti- 
Christ  triumphing  in  the  distance,  gathering  a  short- 
lived strength  from  abroad,  and  finally  yielding  to  the 
mighty  hand  stretched  out  against  it,  with  a  struggle 
we  might  see  from  afar,  but  never  feel.  But  his 
strides  are  hitherward,  and  we  have  the  wormwood 
and  gall  as  well  as  the  high  consolations  and  hopes 
they  may  embitter  and  tarnish,  but  cannot  overthrow." 
All  this  is  very  glowing,  and  would  be  quite  alarming 
to  me  if  I  were  conscious  that  I  had  gone  over  to  the 
enemies  of  Christ ;  but  my  conscience  acquits  me  of  the 
charge,  so  your  arrows  fall  harmless  to  the  ground. 

The  next  quotation  I  shall  make  is,  if  possible,  in 
still  stronger  language ;  and  you  include  in  your 
anathemas  the  whole  body  of  those  who  hold  Arminian 
sentiments.  Speaking  of  Arminianism,  you  say,  that 
"  he  who  would  add  an  iota  to  the  sufficiency  of 
Christ's  atonement,  detracts  from  the  fulness  of  his 
Godhead ;  and  I  have  long  believed  all  of  that  creed 

*  If  by  Saviour  you  mean  Christ — for  God  is  sometimes  in  the  Bible  called 
our  Saviour — will  you  tell  me  where  the  prophecy  to  which  you  have  alluded 
may  be  found  ? 

13* 


150  AN   EXTRACT. 

(that  is,  all  Arminians)  practically  Unitarians,  except 
the  self-deceived  theorists  who  always  become  thor- 
ough Calvinists  on  their  knees.  You  can  imagine  my 
uneasiness  and  distress  concerning  you  ;  for  you  know 
that  I  cannot  separate  the  very  and  absolute  divinity 
of  Jesus  from  religion.  It  is  without  Christ,  the  infinite 
God,  a  form  without  substance — a  body  soulless — a 
puerility — an  absurdity.  Satisfy  me  that  Jesus  is  not 
Jehovah,  and  I  am  convinced  that  the  Bible  is  a  fable, 
and  Christ  an  Impostor;*  for  his  Godhead  is  the  light 
and  life  of  every  page ;  and  considering  his  audience, 
and  their  familiarity  with  the  phrase,  and  the  sense 
they  invariably  attached  to  it,  I  can  never  doubt  he 
designed  to  declare  himself  Jehovah  when  he  said, 
'  before  Abraham  was,  I  am.'  With  these  views  you 
must  know  what  I  think  of  your  present  position ;  and 
yet  I  do  not  design  to  argue  with  you ;  it  is  useless,  for 
you  will  soon  abandon  it  yourself,  and  will  have  to  be 
followed  elsewhere.  You  are  at  the  first  step  of  most 
Unitarians ;  you  believe  Jesus  created,  and  yet  pos- 
sessed by  delegation  of  '  all  the  powers  of  the  Godhead 

*  The  celebrated  Thomas  Emlyn  says,  "  I  wish  they  who  are  adversaries 
to  my  persuasion,  would  learn  at  least  the  modesty  of  one  of  the  earliest 
writers  for  Christianity  since  the  Apostles,  I  mean  Justin  Martyr."  Then 
after  giving  his  views  in  regard  to  Christ,  he  says  :  "And  as  for  those  Chris- 
tians, who  denied  the  above  said  things,  and  held  him  to  be  only  a  man,  bora 
in  the  ordinary  way,  he  only  says  of  them,  to  whom  I  accord  not.  He  does 
not  damn  them,  who  differed  from  him,  nor  say  the  Christian  religion  is  sub- 
verted, and  Christ  but  an  impostor,  and  a  broken  reed  to  trust  on,  if  he  be 
not  the  very  supreme  God,  (the  ranting  diaject  of  some  in  our  age  ;)  no,  but 
still  he  was  sure  he  was  the  true  Christ  (that  is,  the  Messiah,)  whatever  else  he 
might  be  mistaken  in.  It  is  desperate  wickedness  in  men  to  hazard  the 
reputation  of  the  truth  and  holiness  of  the  blessed  Jesus  upon  a  difficult  and 
disputable  opinion  ;  to  dare  to  say,  that  if  they  are  mistaken  in  their  opinion, 
which  I  verily  believe  they  are  then  Jesus  Christ  is  a  liar  and  a  deceiver,  a 
mock  Saviour,  and  the  like.  What  is  this  but  to  expose  him  to  the  scorn  of 
infidels  ?  " 


DOGMATISM    A    SIGN    OF    WEAKNESS.  151 

bodily ;'  in  short,  a  Deputy  God.  Now  if  one  possess 
all  the  powers  and  attributes  of  God,  he  is  God ;  for 
we  can  only  conceive  of  God  by  his  attributes.  But 
there  is  only  one  God,  therefore  by  your  creed  God 
created  or  re-created  himself.  This  is  absurd ;  no  one 
ever  held  it  long  or  ever  will ;  you  must  go  on,  reject 
the  atonement,  deprive  Jesus  of  all  divine  attributes, 
and  make  him  a  mere  man  with  wonderful  virtue,  and 
divinely  sustained  in  his  mission  of  example  and  precept. 
Here  most  of  that  branch  of  Anti-Christ's  followers 
theoretically  arrive;  practically  they  are  Deists,  and  at 
heart  reject  revelation ;  for  no  human  reason  can  swal- 
low the  mass  of  absurdity  their  creed  contains.  Belief 
in  the  Gospel  involves  the  consent  to  many  unexplain- 
able  mysteries,  but  no  absurdities;  any  departure  to 
either  flank  of  the  grand  army  does.*  I  trust  God 
will  direct  you ;  these  things  are  in  his  hands ;  if  you 
are  his  child,  he  will  lead  or  force  you  back  to  his  fold ; 
if  not,  his  will  be  done ;  though  it  is  hard  to  say  it  with 
a  submissive  spirit,  while  the  heart  is  still  bound  up 
by  the  earth  ties  that  will  not  sunder  until  eternity 
discloses  their  comparative  unimportance." 

I  have  made  a  very  long  extract,  my  dear  Sir,  but 
I  could  not  well  divide  it.  I  will  now  take  occasion 
to  remark  upon  several  of  its  points,  though,  in  sub- 
stance, I  may  have  done  so  before.  Line  upon  line  is 
sometimes  necessary  when  we  are  called  upon  to 
defend  ourselves ;  as  we  find  the  attack  upon  the  same 
point  is  often  repeated,  though  perhaps  in  a  different 
form,  and  with  a  variety  of  weapons. 

But  let  me  first  inquire  whether  it  has  never  occurred 
to  you,  that  a  positive  and  dogmatical  assumption  of 
superior  orthodoxy  is  often  indicative  of  conscious 

*  See  Appendix  S. 


ARMINIANS. 

weakness  of  position,  as  excessive  blustering  is  gener- 
ally a  sign  of  cowardice  ?  And  as  no  man  will  so 
watchfully  and  jealously  guard  the  rights  of  his  fel- 
low-men as  he  who  rightly  guards  his  own,  so  no  man 
will  be  more  ready  to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of 
others,  than  he  who  has,  perhaps  unconsciously,  sur- 
rendered his  own.  An  old  writer  has  somewhere  said, 
that  "no  one  is  so  anxious  to  impose  his  opinions 
on  others  as  he  who  has  imposed  upon  himself;"  and 
general  observation  and  experience  will  convince  every 
reflecting  man  of  the  truth  and  sagacity  of  the  remark. 
Therefore,  with  most  minds,  a  mild,  firm,  yet  humble 
expression  of  opinion  has  much  more  weight  than  a 
positive  assertion  of  right ;  and  if  good  reasons  can  be 
assigned,  why,  so  much  the  better,  of  course.  Let 
those  who  are  inclined  to  dictate  and  dogmatize,  think 
seriously  of  this ;  they  will  find  that  they  sometimes 
unconsciously  defeat  their  own  ends  by  the  exhibition 
of  a  spirit  which  sometimes  betrays  the  weakness  of 
their  cause.* 

I  am  amazed  at  your  sweeping  assertion  concerning 
Arminians.  I  wonder  that  you  are  willing  to  consign 
them  all  over  to  the  ranks  of  the  enemy — to  place 
them  with  infidels  and  Deists ; — for  you  perceive  that 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  long  extract  I  have  made,  you 
call  Unitarians  deists  and  Infidels,  and  in  the  first  part 
of  it  you  say  that  you  have  long  regarded  Arminians 
as  Unitarians.  Taking  the  two  assertions  together, 
therefore,  you  would  make  it  out  that  all  Arminians 

*  "  As  Plutarch,"  says  Hales, "  reports  of  a  painter,  who  having  unskilfully 
painted  a  cock,  chased  away  all  cocks  and  hens,  that  so  the  imperfection  of 
his  art  might  not  appear  in  comparison  with  nature  ;  so  men  willing  for  ends 
to  admit  of  no  fancy  but  their  own,  endeavor  to  hinder  an  inquiry  into  it, 
&c."  Men  who  are  in  earnest  in  their  search  after  truth,  it  will  not  be  very 
easy  to  "  chase  away"  by  arbitrary  assertions  and  alarming  representations. 


CHRIST   NOT   THE    INFINITE   GOD.  153 

are  also  deists  and  infidels.  Is  this  Christian  charity? 
Is  it  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  ?  That  it  is  the  spirit  of 
Calvinism  I  do  not  doubt ;  but  that  it  is  the  mild, 
delightful  spirit  of  the  Christian  religion — the  religion 
of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus — I  do  not  believe.  It  is 
the  spirit  that  enacted  the  scenes  which  disgraced  the 
synod  of  Dort,  which  afterwards  kindled  and  fanned 
the  flames  of  persecution,  which  sent  Benevelt  to  the 
scaffold,  which  consigned  the  learned  Grotius  to  a 
dungeon,  which  hurried  Michael  Servetus  to  the  stake. 
You  say  you  cannot  separate  the  very  and  absolute 
divinity  of  Jesus  from  religion.  I  really  suppose,  that, 
with  your  present  views,  you  cannot;  but  is  that  any 
reason  why  others  may  not  be  able  to  do  it?  I  could 
not  do  it  once ;  but  the  idea  of  the  absolute  divinity  of 
my  Master  forms  no  part  of  my  religion  now.  "With- 
out Christ,  the  infinite  God,"  you  say,  it  is  to  you  "a 
form  without  substance,  a  body  soulless,  a  puerility,  an 
absurdity."  But  it  is  not  so  to  me.  I  can  conceive 
of  only  one  infinite  God,  not  three.  If  Jesus  be,  as 
you  say  he  is,  the  "  infinite  God,"  then,  so  is  the 
Father  the  infinite  God;  and  so  is  the  Holy  Spirit; 
and  it  follows  that  there  are  three  infinite  Gods.  But 
I  cannot  conceive  of  three  infinite  beings  in  the  uni- 
verse. If  the  Son,  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity, 
be  the  "infinite  God,"  you  must  either  blot  out  from 
the  universe  the  other  persons  of  the  Trinity,  the  infi- 
nite and  universal  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, — or 
you  must,  of  necessity,  believe  in  three  infinite  Beings, 
which  you  yourself  will  probably  acknowledge  to  be 
an  "absurdity."  Nothing  can  be  added  to  what  is 
infinite;  and  if  the  Son  of  Qod  be  "infinite,"  he,  the 
Son,  is  the  only  God.  But  how  different  is  this  doc- 
trine from  that  which  Jesus  taught  us.  "  The  Son," 


154  THE    TRINITY. 

he  tells  us,  "can  do  nothing  of  himself," — "the 
Father  which  sent  me,  he  doeth  the  works."  He  bids 
us  pray  to  the  Father,  not  to  God, — which  term  Trin- 
itarians would  understand  as  including  the  whole 
Trinity;  but  the  term  he  uses  is  the  Father,  plainly 
showing  that  he  did  not  mean  himself,  for  he  cer- 
tainly, even  if  God,  is  not  the  Father.  And  if  he  was 
the  "infinite  God,"  and  equal  with  the  Father,  it 
seems  passing  strange,  that,  when  his  disciples  ex- 
pressly besought  him  to  teach  them  how  to  pray,  he 
should  have  made  no  mention  of  himself  at  all.  If  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  true,  I  do  not  see  how  Christ 
could  have  directed  us  to  pray  to  the  Father,  and  why 
he  did  not  use  the  more  comprehensive  term,  God. 
The  Father,  according  to  that  doctrine,  is  only  the 
third  part  of  the  Godhead,  and  therefore  is  not  the 
whole  God.  If  you  are  shocked  at  this,  and  say  he  is 
the  whole  and  perfect  God,  then,  according  to  your 
hypothesis,  so  is  the  Son,  and  so  is  the  Spirit,  and  you 
make  three  whole  and  perfect  Gods.  If  you  say  they 
cannot  be  thus  separated,  and  when  you  pray  to  one 
you  pray  to  the  whole,  then,  I  say,  you  make  your 
Master  teach  a  very  great  error;  for  he  always  speaks 
of  the  Son  as  being  distinct  from  the  Father.  Again, 
if  the  Son  is  only  the  third  part  of  the  Godhead,  he  is 
not  the  infinite  God.  If,  again,  you  say  that  he,  the 
Son,  is  God,  then  again  1  say  that  so  is  the  Father, 
and  so  is  the  Spirit,  and  once  more  there  are  three 
Gods.  If  you  still  say  that  it  is  only  when  taken 
together  that  they  are  God,  then  I  say,  that,  taken 
separately,  they  cannot  be  Gods ;  the  Son,  the  second 
person,  is  not  God,  because  the  other  persons  are  left 
out;  the  Spirit,  the  third  person,  is  not  God,  for  the 


THE    TRINITY.  155 

same  reason ;   and  you  take  from  us  also  the  first  per- 
son, the  Father — the  God  of  the  Bible. 

But  how  different  is  your  idea  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Son  from  the  ideas  held  by  the  Trinitarians  of  the 
early  ages.  They  did  not  regard  the  Son  as  the 
infinite  God.  Origen  certainly  taught  his  inferiority 
to  the  Father.  But  this  point  you  will  see  more  fully 
discussed  in  the  3d  and  22d  letters.  In  regard  to 
your  assertion  that  without  Christ,  the  infinite  God, 
religion  is  an  "  absurdity,"  I  will  remark,  that,  to  me, 
the  absurdity  appears  to  be  all  the  other  way.  To 
believe  that  Christ,  "the  infinite  God,"  was  sent  into 
the  world  by  the  infinite  God,  while  he  was  all  the 
time  sounding  in  our  ears  the  fact  that  he  did  not 
come  of  himself — that  he  was  sent  to  do  the  will  of 
another,  which  other,  according  to  your  hypothesis, 
was  himself — for  there  can  be  but  one  infinite  God — 
seems,  to  me,  much  more  like  an  absurdity  than  any- 
thing in  the  Unitarian  faith.  Christ  is  indeed,  as  you 
say,  "  the  life  and  light  of  every  page  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament," but  it  is  not  as  the  infinite  God  that  he  there 
lives  and  shines.  It  is  as  the  Messiah — the  Son  of 
God — who  was  sent  by  the  compassionate  Father, 
that  all  who  believe  might  have  eternal  life. 


1 


LETTER  XXI, 


THE  PHRASE  "I  AM." 
MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

I  WILL  now  consider  the  import  of  the  phrase  "  / 
am,"  as  presented  in  the  extract  which  forms  the  sub- 
ject of  the  foregoing  letter.  You  remark  that,  "con- 
sidering Christ's  audience,  and  their  familiarity  with 
the  phrase,  and  the  sense  they  invariably  attached  to 
it,  you  can  never  doubt  he  designed  to  declare  himself 
Jehovah,  when  he  said,  'before  Abraham  was,  I  am.'" 
It  is  contended  by  many  learned  men  that  the  Greek 
phrase  here  translated,  "I  am."  is  invariably  used  to 
mean,  I  am  he,  that  is,  the  Messiah.  Twice  before, 
in  this  chapter,  the  same  Greek  phrase  is  introduced, 
and  in  both  instances  it  is  rendered  by  the  translators 
of  our  common  version,  "I  am  he;"  it  occurs  in  the 
twenty-fourth  and  twenty-eighth  verses.  Why  king 
James'  translators  saw  fit  to  render  this  verse  differ- 
ently from  the  others,  it  is  impossible  with  certainty  to 
decide,  though  the  reason  may  be  very  easily  conjec- 
tured. It  certainly  would  not  have  injured  the  sense 
of  the  verse  to  add,  as  they  had  done  in  the  two 
former  verses,  the  pronoun  he,  and  it  would  have  pre- 
vented much  controversy.  To  show  that  in  the  28th 
verse  Christ  was  speaking  of  himself  as  the  Messiah, 


THE    PHRASE    "i   AM."  157 

and  not  as  God,  he  says,  "  then  shall  ye  know  that  I 
am  he,  and  that  I  do  nothing  of  myself"  The  same  ex- 
pression may  also  be  found  in  John  iv.  26 ;  xiii.  19 ; 
xviii.  5,  6,  8,  and  in  every  instance  it  is  translated,  "  I 
am  he." 

In  Exodus  iii.  14,  the  term,  "i  AM,"  is  used  as  a 
proper  name,  and  applied  by  Jehovah  to  himself;  "thus 
shalt  thou  say  to  the  children  of  Israel,  i  AM  hath  sent 
me  unto  you."  The  sentence  is  perfect  and  complete. 
Whereas,  if,  in  the  verse  under  consideration,  the 
phrase  is  to  be  understood  in  the  same  sense — as  a 
proper  name,  the  sentence  is  an  incomplete  and  un- 
meaning one.  Read  it  thus,  understanding  "I  am" 
as  a  proper  name,  and  you  will  discover  this,  for  the 
proper  noun  is  entirely  without  its  corresponding  verb. 
But  read  it  with  the  pronoun  he  understood,  and  it  is 
a  complete  sentence ;  though  the  use  of  the  present 
tense  in  connection  with  the  past  strikes  the  ear  of  a 
grammarian  singularly  and  unpleasantly.  The  bibli- 
cal critic,  Wakefield,  says,  "  the  peculiar  use  of  the 
present  tense  in  the  usage  of  Scriptural  expressions  is 
to  imply  determination  and  certainty;  as  if  he  had 
said,  '  my  mission  was  settled  and  certain  before  the 
birth  of  Abraham.'  ' 

It  is  clear  from  Scripture,  and  from  the  early  fathers 
that  the  Jews  did  not  understand  Jesus  to  have  an- 
nounced himself  as  the  infinite  God  by  this  or  any 
other  expression.  Sparks,  in  his  "Inquiry,"  plainly 
proves  that  the  early  Trinitarians  did  not  think  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  taught,  either  by 
Christ  or  his  Apostles,  so  as  to  be  understood  at  the 
time.  This  is  a  point  of  much  importance;  and  as 
most  of  my  friends  may  not  be  able  very  easily  to 
obtain  the  work  to  which  I  have  alluded,  I  shall  not 
14 


158  EARLY    TRINITARIANS. 

scruple  to  avail  myself  and  them  of  the  erudite  labors 
of  Professor  Sparks,  by  quoting  largely  from,  his  book. 
The  extracts  I  shall  make  are  taken  from  a  work 
entitled  "An  inquiry  into  the  comparative  moral  ten- 
dency of  Trinitarian  and  Unitarian  doctrines,  in  a 
series  of  letters  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton." 
Those  who  can  obtain  access  to  the  work  will  be 
amply  rewarded  for  their  labor  if  they  will  give  it  an 
attentive  perusal.  It  cannot  fail  to  enlarge  their  ideas, 
liberalize  their  minds,  and  add  greatly,  perhaps,  to 
their  store  of  general  knowledge. 

"  The  opinion,"  he  says,  "that  the  Trinity  is  plainly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  has  not  generally  prevailed 
till  of  late.  So  far  were  Trinitarians  from  holding 
such  an  opinion  in  former  times,  that  in  nothing  did 
they  exercise  their  ingenuity  more  than  in  devising 
reasons  why  this  doctrine  should  be  only  obscurely 
shadowed  forth  by  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles,  and 
why  it  should  be  kept  concealed  from  the  Jews. 

"This  subject  merits  discussion,'*  he  says,  "not 
because  it  affects  the  scriptural  evidence  in  regard  to 
the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  doctrine ;  but  because  it  is 
intimately  connected  with  the  presumption  of  making 
the  Trinity  a  necessary  article  of  faith,  which  all  per- 
sons must  believe  before  they  can  be  called  Christians, 
or  hope  for  salvation.  If  the  primitive  Christians 
knew  nothing  of  this  doctrine,  it  is  absurd  to  clothe  it 
with  so  much  importance;  nay,  it  is  absolutely  putting 
a  false  character  upon  the  religion  of  Jesus,  and 
deceiving  the  humble  inquirer  into  a  fatal  reliance  on 
things  which  can  have  no  good  tendency  on  his  reli- 
gious or  moral  conduct.  In  this  light  the  subject  is 
worth  pursuing." 

Professor  Sparks  then  goes  back  to  the  time  of  the 


EXTRACT    FROM    SPARKS.  159 

Saviour  and  of  his  Apostles;  refers  to  the  first  believers 
in  Christianity ;  to  the  early  and  later  Fathers ;  to  the 
Catholics  after  the  Reformation ;  to  some  of  the  first 
reformers ;  to  the  Arrninians  of  Holland ;  and  to  emi- 
nent English  divines  ;  and  clearly  shows  "  with  how 
little  discretion  the  Trinity  is  now  affirmed  to  be 
plainly  taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  with  how  little 
regard  to  consistency  it  is  imposed  as  a  necessary  arti- 
cle of  faith." 

That  it  is  not  explicitly  taught  in  the  Scriptures 
appears  to  me  so  plain,  that  all  attempts  to  prove  the 
fact  seem  superfluous;  yet  when  men  insist  upon  it  as 
a.  fundamental  article  of  faith,  and  affirm  a  denial  of  it 
to  be  "  a  soul  ruining  error,"  the  proof  becomes  im- 
portant and  even  necessary.  Professor  Sparks  proves 
that  it  is  not  thus  taught.  I  have  been  glancing  my 
eye  over  the  pages  of  his  work,  and  find  every  word 
that  he  says  so  important — so  much  to  the  point  in 
my  argument  with  you — and  so  much  better  said 
than  anything  I  could  say,  that  I  shall  probably  lay 
the  whole  of  it  before  you,  trusting  that  I  shall  be 
excused  by  the  author  for  giving  myself  such  latitude. 

"In  the  first  place,  then,"  he  says,  "it  will  not  be 
denied  that  the  great  design  of  the  revelations,  con- 
tained in  the  Old  Testament,  was  to  acquaint  the 
Jews  with  the  true  nature  of  God;  nor  will  it  be 
denied,  that  from  all  these  revelations,  they  had  no 
conceptions  of  any  other  mode  of  existence,  than  that 
of  his  simple  unity.  It  was  perpetually  enforced 
upon  them,  as  a  fundamental  truth,  that  '  the  Lord 
their  God  was  one.'  No  history,  either  sacred  or  pro- 
fane, acquaints  us  with  a  single  fact,  from  which  it 
can  be  inferred,  that  the  Jews  had  any  knowledge  of 
a  three-fold  nature  in  the  Deity.  On  the  contrary,  all 


160  EXTRACT    FROM    SPARKS. 

history  is  against  such  an  inference ;  and  the  demon- 
strable certainty,  that  these  people,  for  whose  light  and 
improvement  the  Old  Testament  was  expressly  de- 
signed, never  had  the  remotest  suspicion  of  such  a 
doctrine  being  contained  in  their  sacred  books,  is  the 
clearest  possible  evidence,  that  it  is  not  plainly  taught 
there,  whatever  may  now  be  deduced  from  types,  and 
shadows,  and  dark  sayings,  and  Hebrew  idioms,  and 
double  meanings. 

"And,  again,  where  does  it  appear  that  the  people 
to  whom  our  Saviour  preached,  understood  him  to 
describe  God  as  existing  in  a  three-fold  nature  ?  Or, 
to  put  the  question  in  a  more  direct  shape,  where  does 
it  appear,  that  in  one  instance,  he  spoke  of  him  as  any 
other,  than  the  one  true  God  ?  The  only  history  we 
have  of  the  opinions  of  that  period  is  contained  in  the 
gospels ;  and  there  we  are  made  to  know,  as  distinctly 
as  we  can  be  made  to  know,  that  Christ  ascribes  all 
things  to  one  Being,  whom  he  calls  the  Father  and  the 
Creator  *  *  *." 

"  The  sentiments  of  the  people,  as  far  as  we  can 
learn,  were  in  exact  accordance  with  these  traits  of  his 
conduct  and  instructions.  Were  their  actions,  or  their 
conversation,  or  their  behavior  towards  him  such,  as 
would  be  expected,  if  they  believed  the  Supreme 
Jehovah  to  be  with  them  in  bodily  presence'?*  This 
question  applies  equally  in  regard  to  his  disciples  and 
his  enemies.  When  he  healed  a  sick  man  by  a  mira- 
cle, '  the  multitude  marvelled,  and  glorified  God,  who 
had  given  such  power  unto  men?  They  did  not 
marvel,  that  God  had  come  down  on  the  earth,  but  that 
he  had  clothed  with  such  power  a  man  in  all  appear- 
ances like  themselves.  Mary  said  to  him,  after  the 

*  See  Appendix  T. 


EXTRACT    FROM    SPARKS.  161 

death  of  Lazarus,  '  If  thou  hadst  been  here,  my  brother 
had  not  died.'  When  she  spoke  these  words,  could 
she  have  believed  him  to  be  the  infinite  God,  who  is 
everywhere  equally  present  with  his  love  and  his 
power?  Many  examples  of  this  sort  might  be  added, 
were  it  necessary;  but  no  one,  it  is  presumed,  will 
undertake  to  prove  it  to  have  been  a  prevailing  opinion 
among  the  contemporaries  of  our  Saviour,  that  he  was 
God,  or  that  in  the  nature  of  God  were  three  distinct 
persons.*  The  testimony  and  probability  are  against 
such  a  result;  and  it  would  be  no  better  than  pre- 
sumptuous, idle  conjecture,  to  represent  the  Trinity  as 
plainly  taught,  if  taught  at  all,  in  our  Saviour's  imme- 
diate instructions." 

"  When  we  come  to  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles, 
we  hear  nothing  of  their  promulgating  a  Trinity.  We 
have  a  minute  account  of  their  preaching  written  by 
St.  Luke  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  and  we  here 
look  in  vain  for  any  place  in  which  they  teach  the 
deity  of  Christ,  or  the  existence  of  a  Trinity.  Nor  can 
it  be  inferred  from  anything  said  or  done  by  their 
hearers,  that  they  understood  them  to  publish  such 
doctrines.  *  *  *  In  short,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the 
persons  instructed  by  the  Prophets,  the  Saviour,  and 
the  Apostles,  had  any  notions  of  a  Trinity  ;  while  on 
the  contrary,  almost  every  page  of  the  Bible  is  loud 
in  proclaiming  the  divine  unity,  and  in  establishing 
the  fact,  that  this  was  the  faith  of  all  true  believers. 
Inference,  in  this  case,  cannot  be  admitted  as  argu- 
ment. If  the  Trinity  be  anything,  it  is  as  essential  to 
the  divine  nature  as  the  Unity,  and  if  one  was  as 
plainly  taught  as  the  other,  we  should  have  the  same 

*  See  Appendix  U. 

14* 


162  EXTRACT    FROM    SPARKS. 

evidence  of  their  having  been  equally  believed.*  We 
have  no  such  evidence,  but  abundance  to  the  contrary, 
and  this  is  enough  to  justify  us  in  affirming,  that  the 
Trinity  was  not  preached  by,  the  Saviour  and  his 
Apostles  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  understood  at  the 
time." 

*  It  might  be  added  that  as  one  is  so  much  more  incomprehensible  than 
the  other,  so  much  the  more  necessary  that  it  should  be  plainly  taught. 


' 


LETTER  XIII, 


EXTRACTS  FROM  EARLY  WRITERS. 

MY  DEAR  SIR: 

I  WILL  now  adduce  the  evidence  which  is  brought 
by  Professor  Sparks  from  early  ecclesiastical  writers. 
He  says:  "Let  us  see,  in  the  next  place,  how  this 
result  (at  the  conclusion  of  the  last  letter;  agrees  with 
some  of  the  early  fathers.  We  shall  here  find  almost 
a  universal  opinion  that  the  deity  of  Christ  was  not 
plainly  taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  as  for  a  Trinity 
of  persons,  nothing  is  heard  of  it,  till  the  deity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  decreed  by  the  council  of  Constanti- 
nople, near  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  A  few 
passages  shall  be  here  introduced,  merely  to  substan- 
tiate the  fact,  that  in  their  opinion  the  Trinity  was  not 
explicitly  taught,  either  in  the  Old  Testament  or  the 
New." 

"  Athanasius  allows,  that  Christ  did  not  make  known 
his  deity  to  the  Jews,  and  endeavors  to  account  for  it, 
by  intimating,  that  the  world  could  not  yet  bear  such  a 
doctrine.  And  he  adds,  '  I  venture  to  affirm,  that  even 
the  blessed  disciples  themselves  had  not  a  clear  knowl- 
edge of  his  deity  till  the  Holy  Spirit  came  on  them  at 
the  day  of  Pentecost.'  *  This  passage  has  a  compre- 

*  Serm.  Major  de  Fid.  Montf.  Coll.  Vol.  ii.,  p.  39. 


164  THE    FATHERS. 

hensive  import,  and  proves  most  clearly,  that,  in  the 
opinion  of  Athanasius,  the  deity  of  Christ  was  not 
known  even  to  the  Apostles  till  after  his  death.  Theo- 
doret  speaks  to  the  same  purpose.  '  Before  his  death 
and  sufferings,  the  Lord  Christ,  did  not  appear  as 
God,  either  to  the  Jews  generally  or  to  his  Apostles.'* 
Chrysostom  often  intimates,  that  Christ  made  but  an 
imperfect  indication  of  his  deity  to  his  disciples.  On 
one  occasion  he  observes,  'Christ  did  not  immedi- 
ately reveal  his  deity;  at  first  he  was  thought  to  be  a 
prophet,  Christ,  simply  a  man,  but  at  last  from  his 
works  and  sayings,  it  appeared  what  he  was.'f  Chry- 
sostom further  says,  that  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
did  not  herself  know  the  secret  of  his  being  the 
Supreme  God."  J 

"  The  Fathers,  also,  acknowledged,  that  after  the 
death  of  Christ  the  Apostles  did  not  teach  this  doctrine 
openly ;  as  we  leani  from  the  hypothesis  framed  by 
them  to  account  for  the  fact.  They  profess  to  consider 
it  a  mark  of  prudence  and  caution  in  the  Apostles  to 
avoid  promulgating  so  unpopular  a  tenet.  It  would 
shock  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  on  the  one  hand, 
who  thought  the  unity  of  God  a  vital  doctrine ;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  it  would  encourage  the  heathens  in 
their  polytheism  and  idolatry ;  and  thus  serious  obsta- 
cles would  be  thrown  in  the  way  of  their  converting 
either  the  Jews  or  Gentiles  to  Christianity.  It  was 
deemed  wise,  therefore,  to  conceal  for  a  time  a  doc- 
trine of  such  dangerous  tendency. 

"  Let  the  Fathers  speak  on  this  point.  Chrysostom 
acquaints  us,  that  our  Saviour  confined  himself  to 
instructions  concerning  his  human  powers,  by  reason 

*  Opera,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  15.  Ed.  Hal. 
t  Opera,  Vol.  viii.,  p.  20. 

*  Ibid.,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  289. 


THE   FATHERS.  165 

of  the  '  weakness  of  his  hearers,  and  the  inability  of 
those  who  saw  and  heard  him  for  the  first  time,  to 
receive  more  sublime  discourses.'*  He  makes  the 
same  remark  in  commenting  on  the  introductory  words 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.f  (Ecumenius  says,  in 
remarking  on  the  text,  There  is  one  God,  the  Father, 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  '  The  Apostle  speaks 
cautiously  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  calling  the 
Father  one  God,  lest  they  should  think  there  were  two 
Gods,  and  the  Son  one  Lord,  lest  they  should  think 
there  were  two  Lords. 'J  In  commenting  on  another 
text,  we  have  the  following  remark  of  Theophylact : 
1  Because  polytheism  then  prevailed,  the  Apostle  did 
not  speak  plainly  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  lest  he  should 
be  thought  to  introduce  many  Gods.'$  Again,  'As 
others  had  made  no  mention  of  the  existence  of  the 
Logos  before  the  ages,  John  taught  this  doctrine,  lest 
the  Logos  of  God  should  be  thought  to  be  a  mere 
man.' "|| 

"  From  these  sentiments  of  the  Fathers,  it  may 
justly  be  inferred,  that  in  their  opinion,  no  such  doc- 
trine as  the  Trinity,  nor  even  the  deity  of  Christ,  is 
plainly  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures.  They  all  agree 
that  our  Saviour  did  not  thus  teach,  and  Athanasius 
represents  the  Apostles  as  ignorant  of  his  deity,  till  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  which  was  some  time  after  his  death. 
And  when  instructed  in  this  sublime  truth,  they  are 
described  as  studiously  avoiding  to  divulge  it,  lest 

*  Opera,  Vol.  i.,  p.  409. 

t  Ibid.,  Vol.  x.,  p.  1756,  in  Heb.  Cap.  i. 

*  Opera,  Vol.  i.,  p.  492,  Ed.  Lutet.  1631. 
§  Comment,  in  1.  Tim.  ii.  5. 

||  Comment,  in  Matt.  Prxf.  p.  1,2.  The  original  of  all  the  above  pas- 
sages, as  well  as  many  others  of  the  same  kind,  may  be  seeix,  in  Priestley's 
History  of  Early  Opinions,  Vol.  iii.,  B.  3. 


166  THE    FATHERS. 

offence  might  be  given  to  weak  minds,  and  to  the 
unconverted.  We  must  remember  that  these  were 
the  opinions  of  men,  who  for  the  most  part  believed  in 
the  divinity  of  Christ  in  some  sense,  and  were  solicit- 
ous to  find  a  reason  why  the  Scriptures  iccre  so  silent 
upon  the  subject.  The  circumstance  of  their  forming 
an  hypothesis  makes  it  evident  that  they  did  not  see 
the  Trinity  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles.  Theo- 
phylact,  it  is  true,  and  some  others,  believed  John  to 
have  been  more  bold,  and  to  have  spoken  more  to  the 
point  in  regard  to  this  doctrine ;  but  this  is  no  other 
than  saying,  that  it  is  not  taught  anywhere  else,  for 
John  was  the  last  of  the  sacred  writers. 

"  Dr.  Horsley  thought  to  weaken  the  force  of  the 
above  conclusion,  by  supposing  that  it  was  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  only,  towards  whom  the  caution,  or,  as 
he  prefers  to  call  it,  the  'sagacity'  of  the  Apostles  was 
exercised.  To  persons  of  this  description  the  plainer 
parts  of  the  Christian  faith  were  preached,  and  when 
they  had  become  partially  initiated,  the  deeper  myste- 
ries of  the  Trinity  were  brought  to  their  knowledge. 
A  conjecture  so  forced  hardly  deserved  the  notice 
which  Dr.  Priestley  condescended  to  give  it*  Where 
do  we  hear  of  the  Apostles  preaching  in  private? 
They  preached  openly  to  Jews  and  Gentiles,  con- 
verted and  unconverted.  Were  not  their  icritings 
intended  for  the  instruction  of  the  whole  Christian 
world?  And  is  it  to  be  admitted,  that  the  most  essen- 
tial parts  of  the  true  faith  were  left  out  to  accommo- 
date the  unbelieving  Jews  of  that  day  ?"f 

*  Letters  to  Dr.  Horsley,  p.  45.     London,  1815. 

t"In  resorting  to  this  device,  Dr.  Horsley  concedes  the  main  point  after 
all,  which  is,  that  Athanasius  could  not  find  the  Trinity  in  the  writings  of 
the  Apostles.  '  In  their  public  sermons,'  says  Dr.  Horsley,  '  addressed  to 
the  unbelieving  multitude,  they  were  content  to  maintain  that  Jesus,  whom 


THE   APOSTLES.  167 

"  From  the  Fathers  we  may  descend  to  the  later 
writers  in  the  Catholic  church,  who  were  ardent 
defenders  of  the  Trinity,  but  have  not  considered  it  a 
Scripture  doctrine.  On  this  subject  Chillingworth 
says  to  a  Catholic,  'As  for  Scripture,  your  men  deny 
very  plainly  and  frequently,  that  this  doctrine  can  be 
proved  by  it.'  *  But  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  was  in 
the  creeds,  and  therefore  must  be  defended.  Tradi- 
tion was  invoked  with  success,  but  without  any 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  Scripture.  Wolzogenius 
has  collected  the  sentiments  of  several  writers  of  the 
Romish  Church,  a  few  specimens  of  which  shall  be 
here  adduced. 

"Petavius,  in  his  celebrated  work  on  the  Trinity, 

the  Jews  had  crucified,  was  risen  from  the  dead  ;  without  touching  his  divin- 
ity otherwise  than  in  remote  allusions  ;  but  to  suppose,  that  they  carried  their 
converts  no  greater  length,  is  to  suppose  that  their  private  instruction  was 
not  more  particular,  than  their  public.'  Letters  in  reply  to  Dr.  Priestley, 
p.  200,  American  Ed.  1821.  The  only  difference  between  Priestley  and  Hors- 
ley  seems  'to  be,  that  Priestley  thought  the  Apostles  did  not  teach  at  all  any 
important  doctrines  not  contained  in  their  writings  ;  and  Horsley  conjectured 
that  these  were  taught  secretly. 

"  Jamieson  labors  this  point  with  his  usual  prolixity.  By  quoting  largely 
from  Athanasius,  he  succeeds  in  proving  that  he  was  accustomed  to  contradict 
himself,  and  from  this  circumstance  seems  half  inclined  to  doubt  the  import 
of  the  passage,  which  made  Priestley  and  Horsley  believe,  that  Athanasius 
did  not  think  the  Trinity  openly  taught  by  the  Apostles.  As  for  the  innu- 
merable specimens  of  corroborative  testimony  collected  by  Dr.  Priestley  from 
other  Fathers,  Jamieson  says,  '  It  would  serve  no  good  purpose  to  follow  him 
through  this  labyrinth.'  Vindication,  Vol.  i.,p.  293.  This  was  a  summary 
mode  of  laying  out  of  the  account  some  of  the  strongest  parts  of  the  work, 
which  he  was  engaged  to  answer.  He  actually  admits,  as  Horsley  had 
done,  the  main  point  at  issue,  and  proceeds  to  commend  the  judgment 
and  prudence  of  the  Apostles  in  keeping  the  Trinity  a  secret.  He  takes  up 
the  clue  of  the  unbelieving-  Jews,  which  Horsley  had  dropped,  and  pursues 
it  with  great  diligence."  Ibid.  p.  294-313. 

*  Preface  to  the  Author  of  Charity  Maintained,  sec.  17.  In  support  of  this 
assertion,  Chillingworth  refers  to  Hosius  Da  Author.  Sec.  I.  iii.  p.  53  ;  to 
Huntlaeus,  De  Verbo  Dei,  c.  19  ;  to  Gretserus,  Zannerus.  Vega,  Possevin, 
Wickus,  and  others. 


168  ROMAN   CATHOLIC    WRITERS. 

speaks  as  follows :  '  Concerning  the  three  persons  of 
the  divinity,  and  their  essence,  nothing  was  fully 
written  or  known,  before  the  council  of  Nice,  because 
this  mystery  was  not  revealed  and  confirmed,  till  after 
the  conflict  between  the  Arians  and  Catholics'*  Sacro- 
boscus  tells  us,  also,  that  as  the  Arians  appealed  to 
the  Scriptures  in  support  of  their  opinions,  they  were 
not  condemned  by  the  Scriptures,  but  by  tradition.! 
The  Jesuit  Scarga  writes,  that  the  '  Apostles  were  at 
first  accustomed  to  conceal  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity 
on  account  of  its  difficulty;'  and  that  Paul  did  not 
preach  the  deity  of  Christ  to  the  Athenians,  lest  they 
should  think  he  meant  to  introduce  a  multitude  of 
Gods.J  According  to  Ballarmine,  'since  the  Arians 
could  not  be  convinced  out  of  the  Scriptures,  because 
they  interpreted  them  differently  from  the  Catholics, 
they  were  condemned  by  the  unwritten  word  of  God, 
piously  understood. '$  In  commenting  on  the  text,  in 
which  Christ  tells  his  disciples,  that  he  has  many 
things  to  say  to  them,  which  they  cannot  hear,  Sal- 
meron  says  he  refers  to  the  three  persons  in  one  God, 
and  the  two  natures  in  Christ. ||  Remundus  warns 
the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  that  if  they  rely  on  the 
Scriptures  alone,  they  will  be  obliged  to  yield  to  the 
modern  Arians,  not  less  than  were  the  Fathers  to  the 
Arians  of  old.  and  he  admonishes  them  to  take  refuge 
in  tradition,  and  the  consent  of  the  church.  U 

*De  Trinitate,  lib.  i.,cap.  l.,sec.  3. 

t  Concilii  Nicaeni  Patres  ex  doctrina  non  scripta,  sed  per  manus  Patrum 
sibi  tradita.  eos  damnarunt.  Defensio  Trid.  Condi,  cap.  6. 

1  Apostoli  dogma  trinilatis  initio  reticere  soliti  sunt,  propter  ipsius  difficul- 
tatem. 

§De  Verbo  Dei,  lib.  iv.,  cap.  3. 

||  Comment,  in  Job.  xvi.  12. 

IT  Hrstoria  de  Ortuet  Progressu  Haeres.,  part  i.,  lib.  2,  cap.  15.  For  these 
testimonies,  and  others  to  the  same  purpose,  see  Wolzogen's  Prtcparat.  ad 


CATHOLICS,    LUTHERANS,    AND    ARMINIANS.  169 

•'From  these  sentiments  of  Trinitarian  writers,  it  is 
obvious,  that,  whatever  may  have  been  their  zeal  for 
a  Trinity,  it  was  a  common  opinion  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  that  this  doctrine  was  riot  to  be  supported 
from  the  Scriptures.  Let  all  due  allowance  be  made 
for  their  love  of  tradition,  it  will  hardly  be  urged,  that 
this  fondness  would  make  them  contented  with  resting 
so  important  a  dogma  on  tradition  alone,  if  they  felt 
secure  in  having  a  just  claim  to  the  additional  and 
irresistible  weight  of  the  revealed  word  of  God.  And 
least  of  all,  as  Wolzogenius  observes,  would  they  have 
used  this  argument  to  those,  who  put  no  confidence  in 
any  tradition  not  sanctioned  by  the  plain  language  of 
the  Bible.  All  parties  held  up  the  Scriptures  as  their 
standard,  and  if  the  Catholic  doctors  had  believed 
them  to  contain  the  Trinity,  it  would  seem  the  part  of 
wisdom  and  policy,  if  nothing  else,  first  to  entrench 
themselves  with  this  authority,  and  then  to  build  up 
the  outworks  of  tradition. 

"  Many  distinguished  Trinitarian  writers  among  the 
early  Lutherans,  were  of  opinion,  that  their  doctrine 
could  not  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  Wolzoge- 
nius mentions  particularly  the  learned  Calixtus,  pro- 
fessor of  theology  at  Helmstadt,  and  also  Dreger,  Let- 
erman,  Behm,  and  some  others.1' 

Professor  Sparks  next  brings  forward  the  Arminian 
writers  in  proof  of  the  same  point;  but  as  you  have 
classed  them  with  Unitarians  and  Infidels,  I  suppose 
you  would  not  give  much  weight  to  their  authority. 
Passing  over,  then,  such  unworthy  witnesses,  we  come 
next  to  the  Calvinists  and  Trinitarians  of  later  times. 
Among  these,  says  Professor  Sparks,  there  have  not 

Util.  Section.  Lilrorum  Nov.  Test.  cap.  29.     See,  also,  Unitarian  Miscel- 
lany.    Vol.  i.,  pp.  329-332  ;  vol.  ii.,  pp.  81-90. 

15 


170  DR.    WATTS. 

been  wanting  "  those,  who  confessed  the  silence,  or  at 
least  the  obscurity  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject.  The 
zealous  and  violently  orthodox  Jurieu,  who  ranked  a 
denial  of  the  Trinity  among  the  greatest  possible  here- 
sies, did  not  pretend  that  this  doctrine  was  known  in 
its  proper  shape  till  the  council  of  Nice.  He  proves 
from  the  ancients,  that,  during  the  three  first  centuries, 
the  opinion  was  universal,  that  the  Son  was  not  equal 
to  the  Father,  nor  his  existence  of  the  same  duration.* 
"Dr.  Watts,  while  he  was  yet  a  Trinitarian,  con- 
fesses that  our  Saviour  spoke  of  himself  with  reserve, 
when  alluding  to  the  mystery  of  his  nature.  When  the 
young  man  called  Jesus  good  master,  he  said  in  reply, 
c  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  There  is  none  good  but 
one,  and  that  is  God.'f  Since  he  chides  the  young 
man  for  ascribing  to  him  an  attribute,  which  he  tells 
him  belongs  only  to  the  Supreme  Being,  no  words 
could  be  more  explicit  in  testifying  that  he  was  not 
himself  that  Being.  Dr.  Watts  felt  the  difficulty,  and 
ventured  on  the  following  explanation.  '  Our  Saviour 
did  not  choose  to  publish  his  own  divinity,  or  oneness 
with  God.  in  plain  and  express  terms  to  the  people, 
but  generally  by  such  methods  of  inquiry  and  insinua- 
tion'^. That  is,  according  to  this  example,  by  insinu- 
ating, that  he  was  not  what  he  actually  was.  And  the 
same  will  follow  from  many  other  parts  of  Scripture, 
where,  if  Christ  were  God,  his  language  was  calcu- 
lated to  deceive  the  people.  Watts  does  not  stop 
with  the  Trinity,  but  extends  the  designed  ambiguity 
of  our  Saviour's  language  to  other  doctrines,  and 
especially  to  the  atonement.  When  he  preached  this 

*Ben  Mord.  Apol.,  Vol.  i.,  p.  46.    Jortin's  remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, Vol.  ii.,  p.  29. 
tMatt.  xix.  17. 
J  Watts'  Works,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  621.  Lend.  1310.  4to. 


BLESSING   OF    FREEDOM.  171 

doctrine,  says  Watts,  it  was  '  rather  in  secret  to  his 
disciples,  or,  if  in  public,  it  was  generally  in  dark  say- 
ings, and  parables,  and  mystical  expressions.'*  In 
most  cases,  such  a  mode  of  explanation  and  defence 
would  be  thought  no  better  than  giving  up  the  point. 
Watts,  however,  in  imitation  of  the  Fathers,  makes  a 
merit  of  his  difficulties,  and  charges  them  all  to  the 
prudence  and  caution  of  the  Saviour.  One  of  the  most 
remarkable  things  about  the  matter  is,  that  he  could 
not  persuade  his  conscience  to  approve  the  exercise 
of  Christian  charity  towards  those,  who  could  not  see 
as  he  did  this  doctrine  taught  by  the  Saviour  only' 
in  secret,  in  dark  sayings,  and  mystical  expressions. 
There  never  was  a  more  striking  instance  of  the 
power  of  orthodoxy  to  narrow  the  mind,  and  shut  up 
the  heart,  f 

"  In  Bishop  Smalridge's  Sermon  on  the  use  of 
Reason,  after  speaking  of  the  Trinity  as  described  in 
the  Articles,  Liturgy,  and  Creeds,  he  observes :  '  It 
must  be  owned  that  this  doctrine  is  not  in  so  many 
words  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  What  we  pro- 
fess in  our  prayers,  we  nowhere  read  in  Scripture,  that 
the  one  God,  the  one  Lord,  is  not  only  one  person,  but 
three  persons  in  one  substance.  But  although  these 
truths  are  not  read  in  Scripture,  yet  they  may  easily, 
regularly,  and  undeniably  be  inferred  from  Scripture. 
If,  indeed,  it  can  be  shown,  that  these  inferences  are 
wrong,  they  may  safely  be  rejected.':}:  Atterbury 
advances  similar  sentiments,  and  seems  to  think  it  an 
advantage  to  Christianity  that  this  doctrine  and  others 
should  be  expressed  so  obscurely.  It  affords  a  trial  of 


*  Watts'  Works,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  637. 

tlbid.,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  578. 

t  Smalridge's  Sertnons,  Folio,  p.  348. 


172  TRADITION    AND    INFERENCE. 

our  faith,  which  we  could  not  have,  if  all  were  plain 
and  positive ;  and.  therefore,  it  is  rather  a  benefit,  than 
otherwise,  that  the  Trinity  should  be  partially  and 
darkly  made  known  in  the  Scriptures.* 

"  Such  have  been  the  opinions  of  many  of  the  most 
learned  and  respectable  Trinitarians  in  all  ages  of  the 
Christian  Church ;  they  have  defended  the  Trinity,  not 
on  the  ground  of  its  being  clearly  taught,  but  solely  as 
a  doctrine  of  tradition,  or  of  inference.  Some  have 
inclined  to  one,  and  some  to  the  other,  according  to  the 
period  and  country  in  which  they  lived.  When  tra- 
dition was  more  in  vogue  than  at  present,  this  was 
made  to  bear  the  burden  of  proof;  but  when,  in  the 
progress  of  inquiry  and  knowledge,  this  refuge  of  the 
dark  ages  was  stripped  of  its  authority,  a  broader 
foundation  was  to  be  sought  out  for  the  Trinity.  The 
Bible  was  now  taken  up  in  earnest;  where  the  Trinity 
was  once  seen  darkly,  even  by  the  keen  eyes  of  wisdom 
and  learning,  it  now  came  out  in  such  bright  and 
imposing  colors  as  to  be  distinctly  perceived  by  the 
shortest  vision ;  it  was  discovered  to  be  at  the  bottom 
of  every  religious  truth;  from  the  first  verse  of  Genesis 
to  the  last  chapter  of  Revelation,  the  whole  Bible  was 
full  of  the  Trinity. 

"It  is  worthy  of  special  observation,  however,  that 
it  has  never  been  formally  defended  as  a  plain  doctrine 
of  Scripture;  nor  in  Christendom  is  there  a  creed  in 
which  it  is  expressed  in  Scripture  language ;  nor  is  it 
ever  defined  in  this  language  by  those  who  are  loudest 
in  proclaiming  it  a  plain  Scripture  doctrine.  It  is 
deduced  by  inference,  and  inference  only,  When  the 
matter  is  brought  to  the  test,  it  is  not  pretended  that 

*  Atterbury's  Sermons  and  Discourses  on  several  subjects  and  occasions, 
VoL  Ui.,  pp.  266,  267. 


INFERENCE.  173 

Christ  was  ever  called  God,'  the  same  Being  as  the 
Father,  or  the  Supreme  Jehovah.  All  that  is  pre- 
tended comes  to  no  more  than  this,  that  many  things 
are  said  of  Christ,  which  it  is  supposed  could  not  be 
said  of  him  if  lie  were  not  God.  This  is  called  an 
argument,  and  then  follows  the  inference,  that  he  was 
God.  So  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  which  cer- 
tain characteristics  are  ascribed,  that  are  supposed  to 
be  peculiar  to  the  Supreme  Being,  and  hence  comes 
the  inference,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God.  Hitherto 
we  have  three  Gods,  and  the  labor  of  inferring  must 
be  continued,  or  the  unity  will  be  destroyed.  It  must  be 
inferred,  that  the  Son  is  the  same  Being  as  the  Father ; 
and  again  it  must  be  inferred,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
the  same  Being  as  the  Father,  and  also  the  same 
Being  as  the  Son.  We  are  now  arrived  at  what  is 
called  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  the -point  has  been 
gained  by  building  up  inference  on  inference  with  very 
little  aid  from  the  express  words  of  Scripture." 

I  have  now,  my  dear  Sir,  completed  my  extensive 
quotations  on  a  certain  point ;  and  you  must  at  least 
acknowledge  that  a  vast  number  of  Trinitarian  writers 
have  not  been  able  to  discern,  as  plainly  as  you  seem 
to  discern,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  even  in  the 
phrase  used  by  our  Saviour,  "Before  Abraham  was, 
I  am." 

15* 


LETTER  XXIII, 

ERRONEOUS  PREMISES. 

MY  DEA.R  SIR  : 

I  WILL  next  notice  what  you  say  in  regard  to  the 
"absurdity"  of  believing  Jesus  a  created  Being,  and 
yet  "  possessed  by  delegation  of  all  the  powers  of  the 
Godhead  bodily."  "  Now,"  you  go  on  to  remark,  "  if 
one  possess  all  the  powers  and  attributes  of  God,  he  is 
God ;  for  we  can  only  conceive  of  God  by  his  attri- 
butes." &c.  Before,  in  such  an  oracular  manner,  you 
pronounce  my  faith  "absurd,"  you  must  convince 
myself  and  others  that  your  position  can  be  proved, 
and  first,  let  us  inquire  whether  you  start  upon  fair 
premises. 

I  readily  grant,  that,  from  your  premises,  you  might 
easily  prove  an  absurdity.  But  you  have  first  to  prove 
that  these  premises  are  correct.  SD  far  as  1  am  indi- 
vidually concerned,  I  do  by  no  means  admit  them ; 
nor,  so  far  as  I  know,  would  they  be  admitted  by  any 
Unitarian  upon  earth.  Unitarians  believe,  as  the 
Scriptures  teach,  that  their  Master  possessed  "  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily;"  not,  as  you  have  ren- 
dered it,  "all  the  powers  of  the  Godhead,"  &c.  And 
they  understand  this  term,  "  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head," not  in  an  unlimited  sense,  but  with  a  degree  of 
limitation  the  subject  seems  to  demand.  They  inter- 


COLOSSIANS.    H.  9.  175 

pret  one  portion  of  Scripture  by  another,  endeavoring 
to  make  every  part  harmonize  with  the  general  tenor 
of  the  whole  book,  just  as  they  would,  in  fairness  and 
candor,  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  different  portions 
of  any  other  book.  Therefore,  when  they  read  in  Col. 
ii.  9,  "In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily,"  they  remember  that  in  Eph.  iii.  19,  Paul 
prayed  that  his  Christian  brethren  might  be  filled  with 
all  the  fulness  of  God.  Here  they  find  the  very  same 
expression,  "  all  the  fulness;"  but,  as  they  do  not  sup- 
pose that,  if  Paul's  prayer  were  answered,  Christians 
would  be  equal  with  God,  neither  do  they  believe  that 
because  Christ  was  said  to  possess  "  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily,"  he  must  therefore  be  God  him- 
self. It  is  true,  that  if  Christians  were  filled  with  all 
the  fulness  of  God,  they  would  be  one  with  God,  as 
Christ  and  his  Father  were  one ;  for  Christ  also  prayed 
that  Christians  might  be  one,  "even  as  we,"  said  he, 
"  are  one ;"  but  in  neither  case  do  they  make  this  one- 
ness to  signify  personal  identity ;  if  they  did  it  in  one 
case,  they  would  have  a  right  to  do  it  in  the  other. 
But  Paul,  to  make  his  meaning  still  more  plain,  and 
as  if  anticipating  the  mistakes  of  after  ages,  seems  anx- 
ious to  explain  just  what  he  meant  by  this  expression, 
"  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead."  He  tells  us  in  Col.  i. 
19,  why  and  how  it  was  that  this  fulness  dwelt  in 
Christ.  "It  pleased  the  Father"  says  he,  "that  in 
him  should  all  fulness  dwell." 

So  in  regard  to  the  phrase  "all  power;"  it  is  to  be 
used  with  the  same  kind  of  limitation,  also  keeping  in 
view  the  declaration  of  our  Saviour  that  this  power 
was  given  to  him. 

If,  my  dear  Sir,  I  approved  of  the  habit,  so  common 
among  the  orthodox,  of  saying  uncourteous  things  of 


176  ABSURDITY. 

those  whose  sentiments  I  may  be  opposing,  I  might 
easily  retort  the  charge  which  you  have -made.  It 
would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  there  is  something 
very  much  like  an  absurdity  in  asserting  that  the 
Being  to  whom  all  power  was  given,  possessed  that 
power  inherently,  or  was,  in  fact,  the  very  Being  by 
whom  the  power  was  given;  and  that,  when  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt  in  Christ  because  it 
pleased  the  Father  that  it  should  be  so,  he  possessed 
that  fulness  in  his  own  nature,  independently  of  his 
Father;  or  that  the  Being  in  whom  another  Being 
had  placed  all  fulness,  was  the  very  Being  who  placed 
that  fulness  there.  But  I  forbear ;  I  would  prefer  not 
to  follow  the  example  you  have  set  me  in  this  matter. 
Two  things  only  I  ask  of  you,  and  of  my  friends  in 
general.  They  are  that  I  may  be  allowed  the  privi- 
lege of  free  inquiry,  and  be  permitted  to  exercise  the 
right  of  private  judgment; — first  principles  of  Protes- 
tantism ; — principles  for  which  the  fathers  of  the  Re- 
formation were  always  ready  to  lay  down  their  lives ; 
— for  which  they  toiled  and  bled ; — which  all  Protes- 
tants ought  most  constantly  and  jealously  to  guard. 

I  used  to  boast  of  living  in  a  free  country ;  but,  as 
long  as  we  have  sects  who  vote  all  who  differ  from 
them  out  of  the  pale  of  Christianity,  our  country  is  not 
free.  That  I  have  some  cause  for  this  remark,  you 
certainly  must  acknowledge.  You  have  more  than 
once  numbered  me  with  the  adherents  of  "  Anti- 
Christ;"  you  have  called  my  case  "  a  hopeless  one ;" 
you  have  more  than  insinuated,  that,  unless  I  return 
to  my  former  faith,  and  your  present  one,  I  shall  be 
"left  to  perish;"  you  have  classed  me  among  those 
upon  whom,  as  you  assert,  there  is  a  fearful  "woe" 
denounced ;  you  have  placed  me  among  deists  and 


RELIGIOUS    FREEDOM.  177 

infidels;  you  have  announced  my  departure  to  one 
flank  of  "the  grand  army,"  by  which,  I  suppose,  you 
mean  the  army  of  "Anti-Christ;"  and  finally,  you 
have  numbered  me  among  those  "silly  women,"  who 
are  easily  "  led  away  captive."  Now  I  say  again,  that 
as  long  as  there  are  overwhelming  sects,  and  extensive 
combinations  of  men,  aye,  even  the  majority  of  the 
Christian  world,  who,  on  account  of  some  differences 
of  opinion,  cast  entirely  out  of  the  pale  of  Christianity, 
and  deny  the  name  of  Christian  to  those  who  pro- 
fessedly hold  to  Christ  as  their  head, — I  arn  right  in 
asserting  that  my  country  is  not  free ;  for  I  know  of  no 
tyranny  more  potent,  and  no  despotism  more  galling, 
than  that  of  public  opinion. 

Why  do  we  prize  our  bodily  liberty,  but  that  we 
may  exert  our  bodily  powers?  But  if  we  were  al- 
lowed to  take  only  a  certain  number  of  steps,  and 
were  obliged  to  take  those  steps  only  in  a  certain 
direction,  would  that  be  liberty?  Would  it  be  worthy 
of  the  name?  True,  the  limbs  may  be  unfettered,  we 
are  at  liberty  to  use  them,  but  how  ?  Exactly  accord- 
ing to  the  dictation  of  another.  Would  that  be  liberty? 
Would  that  be  freedom?  Yet  this  is  all  the  mental 
freedom  you  are  willing  to  concede  to  me.  Use  your 
reason,  you  virtually  tell  me;  take  the  Bible,  read  it 
for  yourself;  but  if  you  come  to  any  other  conclusion 
than  that  which  we  think  to  be  right,  you  must  of 
course  be  wrong.  You  did  not  search  in  the  right 
way;  you  are  without  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  you  can  only  be  right  when  you  think  just  as 
•we  do. 

Yes,  my  friend,  you  appear  quite  willing  that  I 
should  read  the  Scriptures  for  myself,  if  I  will  only 
read  them  with  your  spectacles.  But  if  I  must  under- 


178  RELIGIOUS    FREEDOM. 

stand  the  Bible  exactly  as  you  do,  why,  yon  might  as 
well  take  the  Bible  from  me.  Just  give  me  your  sense 
of  it,  and  I  need  give  myself  no  further  trouble  about 
it.*  Why,  my  dear  Sir,  this  is  Popery  in  all  its  length 
and  breadth.f 

But  our  Master  said,  "Search  the  Scriptures,  for 
they  are  they  which  testify  of  me."  And  those  pri- 
vate Christians  were -commended  who  searched  the 
Scriptures  daily,  to  see  whether  those  things  which 
they  were  taught  were  true.  How  different  is  this 
from  your  real  meaning  when  you  direct  us  to  the 
Bible.  Considering  that  our  religious  teachers  in  these 
days  are  not  inspired  men,  as  the  first  teachers  of 
Christianity  were,  the  ground  you  take  is  very  strange. 
You  also  say,  search  the  Scriptures ;  but  you  say  at 
the  same  time,  beware  of  your  conclusions;  let  me 
direct  your  inquiries,  and  control  your  final  judgment. 
You  give  me  leave  to  search  the  Scriptures,  provided  I 
find  there  just  what  you  do ;  and  if  I  cannot  find  those 
things,  if  I  am  not  so  fortunate  as  to  understand  with 

*  "  Would  you  see,"  said  the  "  ever  memorable  "  John  Hales,  "  how  ridic- 
ulously we  abuse  ourselves,  when  we  thus  neglect  our  own  knowledge,  and 
securely  hazard  ourselves  upon  others'  skill  ?  Give  me  leave,  then,  to  show 
you  a  perfect  pattern  of  it,  and  to  report  to  you  what  I  find  in  Seneca  the  phi- 
losopher recorded  of  a  gentleman  in  Rome,  who  being  purely  ignorant,  yet 
greatly  desirous  to  seem  learned,  procured  himself  many  servants,  of  which 
some  he  caused  to  study  the  poets,  some  the  oratqrs,  some  the  historians, 
some  the  philosophers,  and  in  a  strange  kind  of  fancy,  all  their  learning  he 
verily  thought  to  be  his  own,  and  persuaded  himself  that  he  knew  all  that 
his  servants  understood ;  yea,  he  grew  to  that  height  of  madness  in  this 
kind,  that  being  weak  in  body,  and  diseased  in  his  feet,  he  provided  himself 
with  wrestlers  and  runners,  and  proclaimed  games  and  races,  and  performed 
them  by  his  servants  ;  still  applauding  himself,  as  if  himself  had  done 
them.*  Beloved,  you  are  this  man  ;  when  you  neglect  to  try  the  spirits,  to 
study  the  means  of  salvation  yourselves,  but  content  yourselves  to  take  them 
upon  trust,"  &c. 

t  See  Appendix  V. 

*  Seneca  Epist.  ad  Lucil.  zxvii. 


THE    BIBLE.  179 

your  understanding,  you  insist  upon  it  that  I  have  not 
searched  aright.  Is  this  freedom  of  inquiry  ?  Is  this 
the  right  of  private  judgment  for  which  you,  as  a  Pro- 
testant, contend?  Is  this  the  liberty  you  are  so  kind 
as  to  grant  me?  If  it  is,  I  want  it  not.  If  I  must 
arrive  at  your  conclusions,  why  should  I  take  the 
trouble  to  search  for  myself?  Why  not  save  myself 
such  an  expenditure  of  time,  such  an  amount  of  anx- 
iety and  fatigue,  and  such  a  waste  of  strength?  You 
have  searched  the  Bible ;  you  are  very  sure  you  are 
right;  if  I  should  come  to  different  conclusions,  it 
would  be  certain  I  was  wrong;  therefore  my  wisest 
plan  would  be  just  to  give  up  the  whole  business  into 
your  hands.  But  before  I  could  be  persuaded  to  adopt 
your  conclusions,  you  must,  as  I  have  elsewhere  said, 
guaranty  that  I  shall  not  be  called  to  account  for  my 
opinions  at  the  last  great  day.*  This  I  know  you 
cannot  do.  and  therefore  I  will  make  the  Bible,  under- 
stood as  well  as  it  can  be  by  the  reason  which  God 
has  given  me,  my  only  standard  of  faith;  I  will  have 
no  other.  Blessed  be  God  for  giving  us  an  infallible 
standard.  Praise  be  to  his  holy  name  forever !  And 
shall  I  cast  aside  this  revelation  from  God  himself, 
and  submit  to  be  fettered  by  articles  and  creeds,  the 
productions  of  imperfect  creatures  like  myself?  No, 
my  dear  Sir,  God  helping  me,  I  never  will.  The 
Bible — the  Bible  for  me.  I  will  bind  it  to  my  heart; 

*  It  is  only  when  we  can  forget  the  hour  of  death,  that  we  can  lay  aside 
our  sense  of  responsibility.  I  have  met  with  a  beautiful  anecdote  in  illus- 
tration of  this  point.  At  the  time  when  two  thousand  ministers  were 
ejected  in  Great  Britain  for  non -conformity,  a  Fellow  of  Emanuel  College  in 
Cambridge,  speaking  to  another  member  of  the  same  college,  remarked  upon 
the  difficulty  of  conforming  conscientiously,  "but,"  continued  and  concluded 
he,  "we  must  live."  To  which  his  friend  answered  in  these  four  emphatic 
words,  "  But  we  must  die!  " 


180  UNIFORMITY. 

it  shall  be  my  guide  through  life,  and  my  comfort  in 
death. 

Would  you  like,  if  such  a  thing  were  possible,  to  see 
an  "act  of  uniformity"  introduced  among  the  laws  of 
your  country?  No,  no,  you  shudder  at  the  thought. 
That  be  far  from  us,  you  instantly  exclaim.  But 
when  you  attempt  to  deny  me  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  and  assert  that  I  am  a  follower  of  Anti- 
Christ,  because  I  have  followed  the  dictates  of  my 
understanding  and  conscience,  what  are  you  doing  but 
in  your  heart  subscribing  to  an  act  of  uniformity  none 
the  less  to  be  feared  and  resisted,  because  it  has  its 
strong  hold  in  public  opinion,  and  not  in  civil  laws 
and  establishments?  The  only  unity  of  faith  which 
we  can  ever  expect  to  see  held  "in  the  bond  of  peace," 
is  a  unity  of  belief  in  that  which  Christ  himself  de- 
clares to  be  absolutely  essential  and  fundamental ; 
namely,  a  belief  in  him  as  the  Messiah,  which  of 
course  involves  a  belief  in  his  divine  authority.  M. 
Sismondi  remarks:  "  Let  a  man  be  suspicious  of  that 
person  who  would  interpose  between  him  and  his  God. 
Let  him  suspect  the  man  who  would  teach  him  what 
he  ought  to  believe,  and  who  dares  to  affirm,  that  on  a 
doctrine,  which  he  communicates,  depends  the  mercy 
of  the  Universal  Parent." 

You  will  not  deny  that  the  right  of  private  judgment 
is  the  great,  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism, 
the  principle  of  the  Reformation.  But  alas  !  for  frail 
human  nature  !  those  who  glory  in  the  name  of  Pro- 
testants— who  constantly  claim  this  right  for  them- 
selves, are  unwilling  to  grant  it  to  others.  But  I.  as  a 
Protestant,  and  a  responsible  being,  can  never  for  a 
moment  think  of  giving  up  this  right.  My  mind  is  my 
kingdom ;  shall  I  yield  up  the  throne  to  a  fellow-mor- 


MENTAL    FREEDOM. 

tal?  Over  it  I  can  allow  no  human  being  to  domineer. 
It  belongs  to  me,  and  I  belong  to  God.  If  I  have  no 
dominion  over  my  own  mind,  if  I  have  no  prerogative 
here,  where  else  have  I  the  semblance  of  one?  And 
shall  I  lightly  yield  this  high  prerogative?  No,  by  the 
help  of  God,  who  gave  me  my  intellectual  faculties — 
my  mind — my  immortal  nature — I  will  sacredly  guard 
the  treasure,  though,  in  the  struggle,  I  should  lose  all 
beside. 

What  has  a  man  that  he  can  call  his  own,  if  not  his 
own  thoughts,  his  own  opinions?  Who  would  care 
for  the  wealth  of  the  world  without  power  over  his 
inner  man  ?  What  would  a  man  be,  if  he  must  sur- 
render his  mind  to  the  custody  of  others?  If  he  must 
think  as  others  think,  and  believe  as  others  believe? 
Oh,  when  the  soul  has  once  felt  its  own  power,  and 
stirred  itself  up  to  seek  affinity  with  its  God,  and  plumed 
its  wings  for  a  flight  above  this  world  into  the  pure 
atmosphere  of  heaven,  what  power  ought  to  detain  it, 
what  power  can  detain  it  here  ?  You  may  chain  the 
mortal  body,  you  may  torture  the  quivering  limbs,  but 
the  soul,  the  soul,  who  can  chain  or  torture  that?  If 
Jesus,  the  Anointed  of  God,  gives  it  freedom,  if  Jesus 
gives  it  peace,  who  can  chain  or  torture  it?  Unless  a 
man  is  recreant  to  himself,  none  can  do  it.  Unless  a 
man  surrenders  to  the  keeping  of  others  that  priceless 
jewel,  his  inward  being,  he  is  free,  he  is  peaceful, 
though  storms  rage  all  around  him. 

I  have,  my  dear  Sir,  but  little  more  to  say  in  reply 
to  your  communications.  They  contain  many  things 
which  I  could  wish  had  never  been  said,  but  I  must 
regard  them  as  a  part  of  that  discipline  which  is 
intended  to  refine  and  brighten  the  characters  of  those 
who  are  called  to  suffer  and  endure.  In  conclusion,  I 
16 


182  INJURIOUS   IMPUTATIONS. 

will  only  mention  and  point  out  to  you  one  or  two  ex- 
pressions which  have  wounded  me  to  the  heart.  In 
one  of  your  letters  you  say,  "  give  my  love  and  sym- 
pathies to  your  truly  (aye,  now  for  the  first  time  truly) 
afflicted  parents;"  and  in  another  you  remark,  that 
"the  very  Deist  will  say,  she  might  at  least  have 
waited  for  the  brief  period  which  intervenes  between  her 
father  and  the  tomb,  before  she  brought  this  bitterness 
to  his  heart,  this  reproach  to  his  name, — for  what? 
The  mere  pride  of  expressing  an  opinion,  which  to 
conceal(?)  would  have  injured  neither  herself  nor 
others." 

Among  the  variety  of  motives  which  those  who  can- 
not possibly  know  anything  about  the  matter  have 
ascribed  to  me,  the  one  just  quoted  stands  preeminent. 
But  why  do  you  and  others  lose  sight  of  the  plain 
commands  of  the  gospel  1  "Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not 
judged,"  is  surely  as  binding  on  Christians  now,  as  it 
was  when  it  was  uttered.  Now  when  a  man  commits 
a  wicked  action — steals  his  neighbor's  property,  sets 
fire  to  his  neighbor's  house,  or  bears  false  witness 
against  his  neighbor — men  cannot  help  judging  of 
such  actions.  They  see  and  know  that  he  has  done 
wickedly,  that  he  has  broken  the  laws  of  his  country 
and  of  God ;  but  when  they  attempt  to  pass  severe  and 
injurious  opinions  upon  the  motives  which  may  have 
led  an  individual  to  pursue  a  certain  course,  which 
does  not  interfere  with  the  rights  or  safety  of  any  other 
man,  what  are  they  doing  but  violating  the  plain  injunc- 
tion of  the  Apostle,  who  said,  "Judge  nothing  before 
the  time,  until  the  Lord  come,  who  both  will  bring  to 
light  the  hidden  things  of  darkness,  and  will  make 
manifest  the  counsels  of  the  hearts."  Do  they  forget 
that  God  will  surely  visit  them  for  these  things? 


INJURIOUS    IMPUTATIONS.  183 

that,  as  they  sow,  so  shall  they  reap?  The  habit  of 
ascribing  to  our  fellow-creatures  any  motive  rather 
than  giving  them  credit  for  good  ones,  and  for  what 
may  be  the  true  and  right  ones,  is  a  most  injurious 
habit,  and  it  is  alarmingly  prevalent.  If  all  men  were 
guided  by  the  principles  of  Unitarianism,  which  make 
the  laws  of  love  and  the  rules  of  equity  stand  promi- 
nently forth,  and  which,  moreover,  make  men  person- 
ally responsible  for  their  every  action,  word,  and 
thought,  these  things  would  not  exist.  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  say  that  all  Unitarians  are  thoroughly  imbued 
with  that  spirit  of  love  which  "  worketh  no  ill  to  its 
neighbor,"  but  I  do  say  that  this  law  of  love  to  man  as 
well  as  to  God,  shines  conspicuously  and  beautifully 
forth  from  their  rational  and  heart-searching  system 
of  faith. 

Now,  however  others  may  excommunicate  and 
anathematize  me,  and  my  opinions,  it  is  my  joy  and 
rejoicing  that  I  cannot,  will  not,  dare  not,  follow  their 
example.  I  would  not  relinquish  the  delightful  bro- 
therhood I  feel,  with  all  who  in  every  place  acknowl- 
edge the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Lord  and  Master, 
for  worlds.  No,  not  for  any  consideration  which  could 
be  named.  However  sternly  the  majority  may  cast  me 
out  of  this  delightful  fraternity,  they  cannot  shut  up 
my  Christian  sympathies,  or  cause  me  to  deny  to  them 
the  Christian  name,  merely  because  we  give  some 
portions  of  the  Bible  a  different  interpretation.  We  go 
to  the  same  fountain  of  truth ;  we  acknowledge  the 
same  Master ;  we  shall,  I  devoutly  and  joyfully  believe, 
meet  in  the  same  heaven,  and  enjoy  the  same  blessed- 
ness hereafter.  I  congratulate  myself  upon  the  fact 
that  I  can  stretch  out  my  arms,  and  embrace  in  my 
sympathy  and  love  the  whole  Christian  world. 


184  CHRISTIAN    CHARITY. 

But  it  is  no  insignificant  part  of  the  cross  which  I  now 
have  to  bear,  that  I  am  in  a  great  measure  excluded 
from  the  Christian  sympathies  of  my  nearest  and 
dearest  relatives  and  friends.  It  is  hard  to  carry 
about  with  me  the  continual  consciousness  that  they 
regard  rne  as  having  placed  between  myself  and  them 
an  impassable  barrier;  and  that,  according  to  their 
way  of  thinking,  there  can  be  between  us,  on  the  most 
momentous  of  all  subjects,  no  fellowship  nor  com- 
munion. Thus,  while  my  heart  is  gushing  with 
Christian  love  and  sympathy,  and  longing  to  mingle 
with  the  hearts  of  those  I  love  and  venerate,  its  tide  is 
often  rudely  checked  and  turned  back  again  to  find  a 
channel  in  the  already  overflowing  heart  from  whence 
it  came.  This  is  not  imagination.  It  is  sober,  mourn- 
ful truth.  I  have  been  told  over  and  over  again  by 
my  friends,  that,  on  religious  subjects,  there  can  be  no 
sympathy  between  us,  that  I  have  created  a  wide  gulf 
of  separation  between  myself  and  them. 

That  you,  my  dear  Sir,  should  be  among  those  who 
feel  thus,  I  deeply  lament.  But,  as  I  have  already 
said,  it  is  my  happiness,  whatever  others  may  think  or 
say,  to  know  that  we  all  acknowledge  the  same  spir- 
itual Head,  even  Jesus  Christ,  the  Messiah.  I  cherish 
the  delightful  consciousness  that  we  have  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism;  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  us  all.  I 
would  not,  I  repeat  it,  believe  as  you  profess  to  believe, 
that  all  who  do  not  receive  the  Messiah  as  the  infinite 
God,  are  in  a  fatal,  a  soul  ruining  error;  I  would  not 
believe  thus,  no,  not  for  ten  thousand  worlds.  I  am 
told,  in  God's  infallible  word,  that  if  we  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  we  shall  have  eternal  life. 
This  you  believe,  and  this  we,  Unitarians,  also  believe; 


CHRISTIAN    CHARITY.  185 

and  if  your  faith  and  ours  on  this  Son  of  God,  is  that 
sort  of  faith  which  will  bring  forth  "  the  fruits  of  holi- 
ness," the  "end"  will  be,  to  you  and  to  us,  "ever- 
lasting life."  Thus  will  I  always  endeavor  to  keep 
the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  This 
belief — that  even  those  who  differ  from  me  in  opinion 
may  be  in  the  way  to  heaven — shall  ever  be  my  joy 
and  rejoicing,  and  it  is  a  joy  no  man  can  take  from  me. 
16* 


LETTER  XXIV. 


MENTAL  SUFFERING. 
MY  DEAR  SIB  : 

YOUR  supposition,  that  my  mind  must  be  "deeply 
exercised — perhaps  harassed  and  jaded — perhaps  dis- 
tracted"— is  partly  correct  and  partly  incorrect.  It 
certainly  is,  and  has  been  "deeply  exercised,"  and  I 
hope  will  continue  to  be  so  to  the  end  of  my  life,  while 
I  am  striving  to  "  forget  the  things  that  are  behind,  and 
to  reach  forward  to  those  that  are  before;"  but  I 
cannot  say  that  it  is  now  "harassed" — "jaded" — or 
"  distracted."  God  has  given  me  strength  to  bear  all 
that  has  come  upon  me  in  connection  with  my  change 
of  opinions.  As  regards  the  change  itself,  I  never  was 
so  wedded  to  my  own  opinions  that  I  could  not  rejoice 
to  resign  them  when  I  believed  them  to  be  erroneous. 
I  have,  from  my  earliest  years,  cherished  with  jealous 
care  that  honesty  of  mind  and  purpose,  which  would 
render  me  ever  ready  to  acknowledge  the  right,  and 
repudiate  the  wrong,  let  the  consequences  to  myself  be 
what  they  might. 

You  inquire,  "  how  can  a  separation  from  a  faith,  so 
cherished  and  fully  confided  in  from  infancy,  be  made 
without  those  deep  pangs  which  nearly  resemble  the 
sundering  of  the  heartstrings?  I  will  say  nothing," 


AN    EXTRACT.  187 

you  remark,  "  of  associations,  of  relatives,  or  of  friends. 
In  a  step  so  momentous,  I  presume  you  have  con- 
sidered, mainly,  the  one — the  paramount  question — 
what  is  truth  1  What  is  duty  ?" 

In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  I  answer,  that  it  is  because 
I  have  not  separated  myself  from  the  faith  I  have 
"confided  in,  and  cherished  from  infancy,"  that  I 
have  felt  no  "  pangs"  like  "  the  sundering  of  the  heart- 
strings." It  is  because  I  feel  that  I  still  retain  all  that 
was  valuable  about  that  faith,  and  have  only  cast  off 
what,  in  my  view,  clouded  my  understanding,  and 
fettered  my  spirit,  that  I  have  no  feeling  in  regard  to 
my  present  position — I  mean,  so  far  as  concerns  my- 
self— save  that  of  deep  thankfulness  and  sacred  joy. 
What  I  have  suffered  in '  being  the  innocent  and 
unwilling  instrument  of  pain  and  anguish  to  those 
whom  I  love  better  than  life,  the  omniscient  Father  of 
us  all  can  only  know. 

You  proceed  to  say,  "  my  object  in  addressing  you 
is  not  to  argue  the  question,  whether  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  God  as  well  as  man,  or 
not.  I  am  not  so  vain  as  to  suppose  that  anything  I 
can  say  would  produce  a  convincing  effect  upon  your 
mind,  after  the  arguments  of  your  pious  parents  had 
been  in  vain  exhausted.  But  I  did  hope,  that  a  word 
might  be  dropped,  which,  by  the  grace  of  God,  might 
arrest  your  attention,  and  lead  you  to  pause,  ere  you 
made  that  fearful  leap,  which  in  its  consequences  must 
be  grievous,  if  not  ruinous." 

It  appears  to  me,  my  dear  Sir,  that,  among  most  of 
those  who  are  styled  Orthodox,  there  is  a  most  singu- 
lar mixture  of  meek  humility  and  overbearing  pride. 
It  would  seem  by  the  paragraph  last  quoted,  that  you 
have  a  very  humble  opinion  of  your  own  powers ;  and 


188  A    REPLY. 

yet  you  pronounce  yourself  to  be  right,  and  declare 
me  to  be  wrong,  with  the  most  oracular  air.  You  do 
not  imagine,  you  say,  that  anything  you  could  offer 
would  produce  a  convincing  effect  upon  my  mind. 
Then  one  of  three  things  must  be  true ;  either  you  can 
give  no  satisfactory  reasons  for  your  belief — or  I  can- 
not comprehend  them — or  I  am  determined  not  to 
receive  them,  whether  they  be  true  or  false.  Now,  if 
I  cannot  comprehend  them,  of  course  I  cannot  be  con- 
vinced by  them ;  and  you  will  hardly  be  prepared  to 
aver,  either  that  you  have  no  satisfactory  or  convincing 
reasons  for  your  faith,  or  that  I  am  determined  not  to 
be  influenced  by  evidence.  But,  if  you  have  good  and 
satisfying  reasons  to  offer,  and  you  think  I  am  capable 
of  appreciating  them,  and  you  believe  that  I  am  an 
honest  and  sincere  inquirer  after  truth,  I  cannot 
imagine  why  you  should  suppose  that  nothing  you 
can  say  would  produce  "a  convincing  effect  upon  my 
mind." 

In  regard  to  that  mysterious  "word"  which  you 
hoped  might  be  "  dropped  "  and  which,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  might  arrest  my  attention,  you  were  indulging 
a  vain  expectation.  I  think  we  abuse  the  grace  of  God 
when  we  expect  from  it  such  effects  as  these ; — effects 
without  a  cause.  If  a  word  is  dropped  which  causes 
me  to  ponder,  and  leads  to  desirable  results,  it  is  the 
grace  of  God  which  sent  me  that  word,  but  it  is  made 
effectual  because  I  ponder  upon  it,  and  thus  it  produces 
its  effect  in  a  natural  way.  But  remember,  if  you 
drop  any  word  from  which  you  can  hope  for  good 
results,  it  must  be  a  reasonable  word,  addressed  as  if  to 
a  reasonable  being.  I  believe  that  the  grace  of  God 
comes  to  us  as  to  reasonable  creatures,  and  not  in  any 


AN  EXTRACT.  189 

mysterious  way — leading  us  to  heaven  without  our 
•knowledge  or  consent. 

Your  letter  proceeds,  "  I  would  not  grieve  nor  offend 
you  by  the  utterance  of  a  single  unkind  word ;  but  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  Unitarianism — much 
as  I  respect  many  of  the  learned  divines  and  statesmen 
who  have  embraced  that  faith — to  be  a  damnable  her- 
esy— an  unscriptural  dogma — an  utter  rejection  of 
the  Saviour,  in  all  the  affairs  and  relations  in  which  he 
can  be  properly  termed  a  Saviour."  Soft  and  kind 
words  these  are,  truly !  I  acquit  you,  my  dear  sir, 
of  any  intention  to  wound  my  feelings,  but  when  you 
use  such  language  concerning  the  faith  which  I  have 
embraced,  from  a  sober  conviction  of  its  agreement 
with  the  revealed  word  of  God,  I  cannot  think  you  have 
shown  that  mildness  which  is  so  highly  recommended 
by  our  divine  Master,  or  that  "  moderation"  which  St. 
Paul  advises  us  to  show  to  "all  men."  What  useful 
purpose  do  suqh  denunciations  serve  1  They  can  but 
frighten  the  weak  and  credulous,  but  have  no  effect 
upon  a  mind  that  is  searching  for  truth,  and  asks  a  rea- 
son for  every  opinion.  You  might  easily  have  given 
me  your  reasons  for  believing  Unitarianism  to  be  so 
pernicious  and  dangerous  a  system,  without  calling  it 
by  such  hard  names ;  and  such  a  course  would  have  a 
far  greater  effect  upon  a  reasonable  mind  than  the  one 
you  have  pursued. 

It  is  a  striking  proof  to  many  persons  of  the  untena- 
bleness  and  unreasonableness  of  orthodox  theology, 
that  its  advocates  so  generally  resort  to  denunciation 
and  invective.  It  would  be  far  better,  my  dear  Sir,  for 
you  and  your  cause  if  you  could  persuade  yourself  and 
others  to  exhibit  more  of  the  calmness  and  courtesy 
which  are  usually  the  accompaniments  of  conscious 


190  THE    DUKE   OF    SUSSEX. 

strength  and  rectitude.  When  I  hear  Unitarian  Chris- 
tianity thus  furiously  attacked,  I  am  inclined  to  apply  to 
it  the  remark  made  by  M.  Cheneviere  in  regard  to  the 
Genevan  churches.  "Geneva,"  says  he,  "  is  attacked 
because  it  is  in  advance  of  the  other  churches  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  as  it  was  in  the  sixteenth  :  the  time 
will  come  when  it  will  receive  as  many  commendations 
and  blessings  for  its  present  conduct,  as  of  late  it  has 
experienced  insults."  This  is  my  candid  opinion  and 
belief  in  regard  to  Unitarianism  in  general. 

A  most  beautiful  exhibition  and  definition  of  Chris- 
tian charity  was  given  by  Frederic  Augustus,  the  late 
Duke  of  Sussex,  and  brother  to  George  the  Fourth,  in  a 
letter  to  the  venerable  Dr.  Robbins,  Librarian  of  the 
Historical  Society's  Library  at  Hartford,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  his  presenting  him  with  a  copy  of  the  first  edi- 
tion of  the  Bishop's  Bible,  printed  in  London  in  1568. 
Speaking  of  the  Bible,  he  says:  "That  holy  book  is 
the  one  I  consult  most.  Although  I  believe  I  read  it 
differently  from  most  people,  I  do  so  with  great  humil- 
ity, but  with  equal  circumspection,  not  taking  the  dictum 
of  any  man,  and  endeavoring  to  make  out  the  real 
meaning  and  intention  of  the  inspired  writer,  which  I 
fear  is  not  so  particularly  attended  to  as  should  be  the 
case;  but  I  do  this  in  charity  with  all  men,  respecting- 
the  opinions  and  prejudices  of  every  one;  provided  he 
be  hottest,  but  adhering  steadily  to  my  own,  without 
forcing  them,  upon  others  ;  and  this  I  believe  to  be  the 
true  Christian  principle,  CHARITY  TO  ALL."  Oh  divine 
and  beautiful  charity,  called  by  St.  Paul  the  greatest 
of  the  Christian  virtues.  I  rejoice  to  believe  that  thou 
has  not  quite  departed  from  our  world  ! 

Now  I  admire  and  love  Unitarianism  because  one  of 
its  most  distinguishing  features  is  this  same  heaven- 


UNITARIANS    LOVE    CHARITY.  191 

"born  Charity.  In  my  reading  of  Unitarian  works,  and 
ill  my  personal  intercourse  with  Unitarians,  I  always 
find  them  ready  and  willing  to  give  credit  to  others  for 
the  same  virtues  of  sincerity  and  conscientiousness 
which  they  assume  for  themselves,  and  to  allow  to 
others  the  same  rights  and  privileges  which  they  claim 
for  themselves.*  This  willingness,  I  am  sorry  to  con- 
fess, I  do  not  find  among  the  Orthodox,  though  to  this 
general  remark  I  would  make  some  delightful  and  hon- 
orable exceptions.  But,  with  all  their  charity,  Unita- 
rians are  by  no  means  indifferent  to  the  truth.  Far 
from  it.  It  is  because  they  prize  the  truth  so  highly 
that  they  are  not  willing  to  take  it  second-handed,  but 
insist  upon  receiving  it  only  as  it  came  from  God  him- 
self, that  they  are  thus  abused.  It  is  because  they 
will  not  subscribe  to  the  words  of  man,  that  those  who 
do  subscribe  to  them  thus  denounce  and  unchurch  them. 
They  think  that  it  is  of  the  utmost  consequence  what 
a  man  believes,  for  they  are  obliged  to  mourn  over  the 
effects  produced  by  what  they  deem  erroneous  views. 
But  while  they  assert,  and  maintain,  and  defend,  what 
they  believe  to  be  truth,  they  do  not  denounce  arid 
frown  upon  those  who  hold  different  views.  They 
think  them  in  great  error,  arid  they  tell  them  so;  but 

*  Archbishop  Tillotson  has  rendered  this  testimony  to  the  gentle  spirit 
maintained,  in  controversy,  by  Unitarians.  "  To  do  right,"  he  says,  "  to  the 
writers  on  that  side,  I  must  own,  that  generally  they  are  a  pattern  of  the  fair 
way  of  disputing,  and  of  debating  matters  of  religion  without  heat  and  un- 
seemly reflections  on  their  adversaries They  generally  argue 

matters  with  that  temper  and  gravity,  and  with  that  freedom  from  passion 
and  transport,  whicli  becomes  a  serious  and  weighty  argument,  and,  for  the 
most  part,  they  reason  closely  and  clearly,  with  extraordinary  guard  and 
caution,  with  great  dexterity  and  decency,  and  yet  with  smartness  and 
subtilty  enough  ;  with  a  very  gentle  heat  and  few  hard  words — virtues  to 
be  praised  wherever  they  are  found,  yea,  even  in  an  enemy,  and  very  worthy 
our  imitation." — Archbishop  Tillotson:  Works,  as  published  by  himself, 
Senn.  xliv.,  p.  537. 


192  RELIGIOUS   CONTROVERSY. 

they  do  not  feel  themselves  called  upon  to  Jictate  to 
others  as  to  what  they  shall  or  shall  not  believe. 

After  all,  when  you  call  Unitarianism  "  a  damnable 
heresy — an  unscriptural  dogma — an  utter  rejection  of 
the  Saviour," — it  amounts  to  no  more  than  an  individ- 
ual opinion ;  and  all  that  I  have  to  say  is,  that  my  opin- 
ion is  a  very  different  one.  But  when  you  shall  attempt, 
in  the  calmness  of  Christian  love,  to  prove  your  asser- 
tions, I  will  listen  to  you  with  the  greatest  pleasure,  and 
give  to  your  arguments  the  best  consideration  of  which 
I  am  capable.  You  may  oppose  my  opinions  as  much 
as  you  please,  if  you  will  only  do  it  in  the  right  way. 
Argue  me  out  of  them  if  you  can ;  if  they  are  erro- 
neous, the  sooner  1  am  convinced  of  it,  the  better;  but 
personal  reproach  or  harsh  invective  against  a  man  or 
his  opinions,  will  do  nobody  any  good.  There  is  a  vast 
deal  of  religious  intolerance  in  the  Protestant  world,  and 
though,  upon  the  whole,  true  Christian  light  and  liberty 
are  making  progress,  there  are  some  sects,  which, 
alarmed  for  their  ecclesiastical  power,  are  drawing 
tighter  and  tighter  the  cords  which  bind  them  together, 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  We  all  have  a  stake  in 
this  great  matter;  and  if  God  will  give  me  strength,  I 
hope  to  do  my  part  in  exposing  and  resisting  intoler- 
ance in  all  its  forms  and  under  all  its  disguises. 

Religious  controversy  is  always  useful  when  it  is 
conducted  in  a  proper  spirit;  but,  alas !  how  seldom  do 
we  find  this  the  case !  The  Apostle  Paul  is  a  safe 
model  for  every  man.  He  was  constantly  engaged  in 
controversy;  he  contended  "earnestly"  for  the  faith, 
but  his  weapons  were  those  of  sound  argument  and 
affectionate  persuasion,  and  not  those  of  invective  and 
reproach.  And  granting  that  St.  Paul  sometimes  used 
strong  expressions,  you  must  remember  he  was  an 


AN   EXTRACT.  193 

inspired  man,  and  that  you  are  not;  and  you  must 
likewise  remember  that  expressions  in  common  use  at 
that  period  are  not  in  common  use  now,  and  ought 
not  to  be  applied  as  our  language  to  our  contempora- 
ries. 

But  I  am  ready  to  admit  that  anything  is  better 
than  a  dead  calm.  Give  us  a  storm  rather  than  a 
calm ;  there  is  more  danger,  but  there  is  generally 
some  progress.  A  calm  lulls  us  to  sleep;  while  a 
storm  awakens  us,  quickens  us,  calls  forth  our  energies, 
and  gives  us  the  teachings  of  experience.  There  was 
no  controversy,  worthy  the  name  of  controversy,  in  the 
dark  ages;  and  who  would  wish  again  to  see  such 
times  as  those  ?  Who  would  wish  that  gloomy  night 
— that  blackness  of  darkness — to  return  ? 

But  I  proceed  to  notice  another  portion  of  your 
letter ;  and,  to  do  this,  I  must  introduce  topics  which 
have  been  more  than  once  noticed  before.  You  say : 
"  Rob  Him  (that  is.  Christ)  of  his  divinity, — He  who 
'  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God/  and 
what,  oh  what,  in  mercy's  name,  in  reason's  too,  be- 
comes of  atonement,  of  expiation,  of  mediation,  of  his 
gracious,  invisible  presence  amid  all  the  assemblies  of 
his  worshippers  on  earth,  and  the  efficacy  of  his  inter- 
cession in  heaven  ?  You  may  think  it  harsh  and 
uncharitable,  as  well  as  bold,  thus  unqualifiedly  to 
make  so  sweeping  an  assertion.  But  I  am  confident 
— I  hope  with  no  vain  confidence — upon  this  subject. 
My  own  salvation  depends  upon  the  fact,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  omnipotent  to  save — omnipotent  in  his  own 
undelegated,  underived  merits,  to  save  to  the  utter- 
most. I  have,  I  trust,  committed  the  keeping  of  my 
soul  to  his  hands,  and  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to 
keep  that  which  I  have  delivered  to  him." 
17 


194 


PHIL.  n.  «. 


I  shall  not  have  a  great  deal  to  say  in  reply  to  this 
quotation.  The  ideas  are  so  exactly  those  which  were 
contained  in  other  letters,  that  I  have  become  some- 
what wearied  with  their  repetition.  I  am  a  little 
surprised  that  you  should  bring  forward  the  clause 
"thought  it  not  robbery,"  &c.,  when,  as  a  proof  text 
for  the  divinity  of  Christ,  it  has  been  given  up  by 
so  many  Trinitarians.  The  following  remarks  from 
"  Emlyn's  Humble  Inquiry,"  may  never  have  met 
your  eyes.  "  As  to  that  place,"  he  says,  "  which  is 
corruptly  rendered  in  our  translation,  'he  thought  it 
no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,'  Phil.  ii.  6,  it  is  con- 
fessed by  our  adversaries  themselves,  that  it  should  be 
read  thus,  viz.,  that  he  did  not  assume,  or  arrogate,  or 
snatch  at  an  equality  with  God ;  or  covet  to  appear  in 
the  likeness  of  God;  the  words  are  never  known  to  be 
used  in  any  other  sense,  as  is  shown  by  Dr.  Tillotson 
in  his  Discourses  against  the  Socinians ;  also  by  Dr. 
Whitby  in  his  exposition  on  that  place;  and  others. 
So  that  this  rather  denies  than  asserts  Christ's  equality 
to  God,  though  he  was  in  the  form  of  God,  as  that 
notes  the  outward  resemblance  of  him  in  his  mighty 
power  and  works,  which  is  the  constant  meaning  of 
the  word  form  in  the  New  Testament." 

Pitkin,  in  his  reply  to  Baker,  after  proving  that  the 
text,  even  as  it  now  stands  in  our  common  version,  is 
entirely  in  accordance  with  Unitarian  views,  and 
utterly  at  war  with  those  of  Mr.  Baker,  goes  on  to  say, 
"But  it  seems,  that  he  (Mr.  Baker)  was  fully  aware 
that  this  passage  is  condemned  as  a  mistranslation. 
He  says,  '  I  am  aware  that  those  who  reject  our  doc- 
trine give  another  rendering  to  this  passage,  and  indeed 
to  every  passage  which  we  have  quoted,  or  shall  yet 
quote,  numerous  as  they  are !  Now,  is  it  not  marvel- 


ATONEMENT.  195 

lous  that  50  many  passages  have  been  wrongly  trans- 
lated?' But  why,"  continues  Mr.  Pitkin,  "does  he 
say  that  those  who  reject  our  doctrine  give  another 
rendering  to  this  passage'/  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  renders 
it  thus :  '  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God,  did  not  think 
it  a  matter  to  be  earnestly  desired  to  appear  equal 
with  God,  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation,'  &c. 
Tillotson,  a  distinguished  Archbishop  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  renders  it,  '  Did  not  arrogate  to  himself  to  be 
equal  with  God.'  The  celebrated  Whiston  translates 
it  thus :  '  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  did  not  think 
this  likeness  a  thing  to  be  eagerly  retained,  but  hum- 
bled himself,'  &c.  Another  rendering  is,  'did  not 
think  of  the  robbery,  the  being  equal  to  God.' " 

Burnap  says,  in  the  preface  to  his  excellent  Exposi- 
tory Lectures:  "So  much  is  the  Trinity  a  matter  of 
inference,  even  from  them,  (alluding  to  the  passages 
brought  in  its  support,)  that  it  is  said,  and  I  believe 
justly,  that  there  is  not  one  of  them,  which  has  not 
been  given  up,  as  proving  nothing  to  the  point,  by 
some  one  of  the  ablest  defenders  of  the  doctrine."* 

But  I  proceed  to  another  point.  If  by  robbing 
Christ,  as  you  term  it,  of  his  essential  divinity,  we 
blotted  GOD  entirely  out  of  the  universe,  there  would 
be  good  and  great  reason  for  your  pathetic  interroga- 
tion, "Oh  what,  in  mercy's  name,  in  reason's  too, 
becomes  of  atonement,  of  expiation,  of  mediation,  and 
of  his  gracious,  invisible  presence  amid  all  the  assem- 
blies of  his  worshippers  on  earth,  and  the  efficacy  of 
his  intercession  in  heaven'?"  The  atonement  in 
which  1  believe,  does  not  require  an  infinite  sacrifice 
— an  Almighty  victim — the  death  of  a  God!  I  am 

*For  proof  of  this,  see  a  remarkable  work  called  Concessions  of  7Yinita~ 


196  MEDIATION. 

aware  that  I  am  using  contradictory  terms,  but  I  can- 
not avoid  it  under  the  circumstances.  To  meet  Trini- 
tarians on  their  own  ground,  contradictory  propositions 
are  unavoidable.  If  God  saw  fit  to  provide  the  means 
of  atonement,  or  reconciliation.  I  do  not  see  why  he 
could  not  choose  just  what  instrument  he  pleased.  Its 
efficacy  would  be  abundantly  guaranteed  from  the 
fact  that  it  was  provided  by  our  Almighty  Father. 
And  even  on  the  supposition  that  Christ  died  as  an 
"expiation"  or  substitute,  which,  of  course,  I  do  not 
admit,  I  cannot  see  any  reason  why  the  substitute 
might  not  be  just  what  the  Supreme  Ruler  chose  to 
provide.  The  old  idea  that  because  sin  is  an  infinite 
evil,  as  it  is  alleged  to  be  by  some,  it  requires  an 
infinite  atonement,  is,  I  believe,  nearly  exploded.  I 
now  and  then  hear  it  advanced,  by  those  who  are 
somewhat  behind  the  times,  but  I  have  likewise  heard 
it  pronounced  by  Trinitarian  divines,  a  fallacious 
argument.  Neither  sin,  nor  the  atonement  for  sin,  can 
be  infinite,  for  sin  is  committed  by  finite  beings,  and  it 
is  not  pretended  by  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the 
two  natures  in  Christ,  that  the  infinite  part  of  Christ's 
nature  died  upon  the  cross. 

In  regard  to  the  necessity  of  an  infinite  mediator, 
Emlyn  says  :  "  I  judge,  that  to  assert  Jesus  Christ  to 
be  the  Supreme  God,  subverts  the  Gospel  doctrine  of 
his  mediation ;  for  if  I  must  have  one,  who  is  Supreme 
God  and  man,  for  my  mediator  with  God,  then,  when 
I  address  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Supreme  God,  where  is 
the  God-man  that  must  be  my  mediator  with  him  ? 
To  say  he  mediates  with  himself  is  the  same  as  to 
say  that  I  must  go  to  him  without  a  mediator ;  and 
turns  the  whole  business  of  mediation  into  a  metaphor, 


CHRIST  EVER  PRESENT.  197 

contrary  to  the  common  sense  of  things,  as  well  as 
against  the  Scripture." 

Now,  I  ask,  is  he  mediator  in  his  divine  or  in  his 
human  nature?  If  in  his  human,  he  cannot,  according 
to  your  ideas,  know  what  all  God's  creatures  want  and 
pray  for.  If  he  mediates  in  his  divine  nature,  or  in 
both  united,  then,  as  Emlyn  says,  he  mediates  with 
himself.  But  St.  Paul  says,  1  Tim.  ii.  5,  "  There  is 
but  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between  God  and  men, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus."  "  Never  let  us  fear,"  says 
Emlyn,  "but  St.  Paul  knew  how  to  describe  the 
mediator  between  God  and  men,  without  leaving  out 
the  better  half  of  him,  or  the  principal  nature.  Our 
mediator,  according  to  him,  was  only  called  a  '  man ;' 
who  also  is  by  office  a  God,  or  ruler  over  all,  made  so 
by  him  who  puts  all  things  under  him." 

In  regard  to  your  remark  concerning  "  his  gracious, 
invisible  presence  amid  all  the  assemblies  of  his  wor- 
shippers on  earth,"  I  believe  in  it  as  firmly  as  you  do, 
though  in  a  different  sense.  I  believe  that  he  is  with 
them  by  his  recorded  words,  by  the  Spirit  of  his  Gos 
pel,  by  the  influence  of  that  religion  which  he  came  to 
establish.  Emlyn  shows  that  Baxter,  and  many  others 
reputed  orthodox,  believed  that  an  inherently  divine 
nature  was  not  necessary  to  the  possession  of  such 
knowledge  of  earthly  affairs  as  Christ  has  ascribed  to 
himself.  "The  reverend  Mr.  Baxter,"  he  says,  "in 
his  notes  on  Eph.  iv.  16,  plainly  intimates,  that  he 
conceives  an  angel  might  be  made  capable  of  ruling 
the  Universal  Church  on  earth  by  legislation,  judg- 
ment, and  execution;  for  having  said  this  task  was 
impossible  to  any  power  but  divine,  he  corrects  him- 
self by  adding,  or  angelical  at  least;  and  sure  the  man 
Christ's  ability  is  far  superior  to  angels ;  besides  that, 
17* 


198  CHRIST'S  KNOWLEDGE. 

he  has  them  ministering  to  him,  and  giving  him  notice 
of  matters,  if  there  be  any  occasion ;  for  he  has  seven 
principal  spirits,  who  are  the  '  eyes  of  the  Lamb  sent 
forth  through  all  the  earth,'  as  the  same  writer  inter- 
prets Rev.  v.  6." 

"  So,"  continues  Emlyn,  "  the  author  of  the  little 
book,  called,  The  Future  State,  the  same  who  wrote 
The  Good  Samaritan,  a  worthy  divine  of  the  Church 
of  England,  says  many  very  rational  things  concerning 
the  large  extent  of  Christ's  human  knowledge ;  that 
probably  '  he  can  as  easily  inspect  the  whole  globe  of 
this  earth,  and  the  heavens  that  compass  it,  as  we  can 
view  a  globe  of  an  inch  diameter ! '  p.  46,  47.  '  That 
he  intercedes  as  man,  and  can  he  intercede  in  a  case 
he  knows  not?'  So  again,  p.  150.  The  like  says 
Limborch  in  his  Theol.  Christ,  lib.  5,  c.  18." 

He  next  adds  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Thomas  Good- 
win, "  where  he  says,  '  the  human  understanding  of 
Christ  takes  in  all  occurrences  which  concern  his 
Church.'  And  that,  as  he  said,  'All  power  in  heaven 
and  earth  is  given  me  of  my  Father,'  so  might  he  say, 
'All  knowledge  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given  me,' — 
that  'his  beams  pierce  into  every  corner' — that  'he 
knows  the  sore  of  every  heart.'  And  he  concludes 
with  these  remarkable  words,  '  that  as  a  looking  glass 
wrought  in  the  form  of  a  globe,  represents  the  images 
of  all  that  is  in  the  room,  so  the  enlarged  human 
understanding  of  Christ  takes  in  all  things  in  heaven 
and  earth  at  once.'  It  seems,"  says  Mr.  Emlyn,  "these 
men  did  not  take  it  to  be  the  peculiar  perfection  of  the 
divine  nature  to  know  the  hearts,  so  as  that  no  creature 
could  partake  of  it  by  divine  assistance  and  revelation." 
I  believe  these  are  the  sentiments  of  men  whose  ortho- 
doxy was  never  called  in  question. 


OMNIPRESENCE.  199 

There  are  a  great  many  ways  in  which  this  promise 
we  have  been  considering,  and  that  other  promise, 
•'•'  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,"  can  be  fulfilled,  with- 
out supposing  Christ  to  be  an  omnipresent  being.  If 
we  abide  in  him.  and  his  words  abide  in  us,  is  he  not 
with  us  always  !  Do  we  not  say  of  the  good  man  who 
hath  left  the  legacy  of  his  pure  spirit  behind  him, 
"He  being  dead  yet  speaketh?"  Is  not,  in  a  sense, 
the  spirit  of  WASHINGTON  with  us  still?  And  is  it  not 
our  earnest  hope  and  prayer  that  his  spirit  may  burn 
and  glow  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen,  even  to  the 
end  of  the  world?  If  then  Christ  "is  the  true  vine, 
and  we  are  the  branches" — if,  as  the  branch  cannot 
bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine,  so  no 
more  can  we,  except  we  abide  in  Christ,  is  he  not 
always  with  those  thus  united  to  him '!  Are  not  his 
commands  always  with  us  ?  And  here  let  me  pause, 
and  entreat  you  to  ponder  with  me  those  significant 
words,  in  his  last  address  to  his  disciples  before  his 
crucifixion,  "  This  is  my  commandment,  that  ye  love 
one  another." 

But  further,  are  not  Christ's  promises  always  with 
us  ?  Is  not  his  wonderful  example  always  before  us  ? 
Who  is  the  Christian's  companion  but  him  whom  he 
has  chosen  as  his  guide  to  heaven?  Is  he  not  "the 
good  Shepherd,"  and  do  not  his  sheep  hear  his  voice, 
and  follow  him  as  they  will  not  follow  a  stranger? 

But  I  pass  on  to  another  topic.  I  certainly  do,  as 
you  seem  to  apprehend  I  may,  "  think  it  harsh  and 
uncharitable,  as  well  as  bold,"  to  make  use  of  the 
epithets  with  which  you  have  denounced  Unitarian- 
ism;  viz.,  "  a  damnable  heresy — an  unscriptural  dogma 
— an  utter  rejection  of  the  Saviour."  These  are  cer- 
tainly very  hard  names.  I  not  only  think  them  harsh 


200  HARSH    EPITHETS. 

and  uncharitable,  but  I  think  still  further,  that  by  such 
a  course  you  seriously  injure  yourself,  and  the  cause 
you  are  endeavoring  to  advocate.  To  use  the  lan- 
guage of  a  writer  in  the  Christian  Examiner  for  March 
and  April,  1820,  "It  is  not  the  way  to  conciliate,  and 
increase  converts;  but  it  drives  some  away  in  disgust 
and  sorrow,  and  it  feeds  the  worst  passions  of  those 
who  remain  behind.  How  childish,  moreover,"  says 
he,  "  to  be  calling  names,  and  dooming  this  one  and 
that  one  to  hell !  Does  it  not  at  least  reveal  a  woful 
poverty  of  argument  ?  Unitarian  churches  have  been 
filled  rather  than  emptied  by  these  bitter  denunciations 
from  abroad ;  for,  after  all,  men  will  venture  to  such 
places,  with  the  curiosity  that  leads  youth  to  creep  to 
the  brink  of  precipices,  to  see  what  is  there.  A  glori- 
ous prospect,  on  a  safe  footing,  often  rewards  both 
kinds  of  adventurers." 

No,  Sir,  you  are  not  aware  how  much  you  lose  by 
an  indulgence  in  such  expressions  as  those  you  have 
unhesitatingly  used.  As  for  me,  I  will  always  endea- 
vor to  speak  what  I  regard  to  be  "  the  truth,  in  love  /" 
and  it  shall  be  my  aim,  as  it  is  now  my  desire  and  my 
intention,  to  follow  the  direction  of  the  Apostle  Peter, 
"  Be  ready  always  to  give  an  answer  to  every  one  that 
asketh  you  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  you,  with 
meekness  and  fear."*  And  I  call  upon  all  those  who 

*  Paul,  too,  gives  excellent  advice  on  the  subject.  In  his  last  letter  to 
Timothy,  after  speaking;  of  those  questions  which  "  gender  strifes,"  he  says, 
"And  the  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not  strive  ;  but  be  gentle  unto  all  men, 
apt  to  teach,  patient,  in  meekness  instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves, 
if  God  peradventure  will  give  them  repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the 
truth."  Now,  even  if  you  class  me  with  those  who  "oppose  themselves," 
though  verily  I  think  I  am  more  opposed  than  opposing,  for  I  only  ask  to 
judge  for  myself,  and  have  no  desire  to  thrust  my  opinions  upon  anybody, — 
you  must  perceive  that  you  have  not,  in  reproving  me,  followed  St.  Paul's 
most  excellent  advice.  , 


HARSH    EPITHETS.  201 

love  candor  and  fair  dealing  to  examine  and  decide  for 
themselves  whether  the  ground  taken  by  the  orthodox, 
against  Unitarians  and  Unitarianism,  is,  or  is  not, 
unfair  and  incorrect;  and  whether  the  anathemas 
which  are  so  lavishly  thundered  against  them,  are,  or 
are  not  deserved. 

But  I  am  tired  of  this  style  of  controversy,  and  will 
therefore  bring  this  long  letter  to  a  close  by  congratu- 
lating you  upon  the  "confidence"  you  feel  in  regard 
to  your  salvation,  and  by  earnestly  expressing  the 
hope  that  it  may  indeed  be  "no  vain  confidence." 


LETTER  XXV, 


AN  EXTRACT. 
MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

WHAT  you  say  in  regard  to  the  danger  and  folly  of 
examining  into  other  systems  of  faith  than  those  which 
we  have  already  embraced,  though,  in  my  view,  a  sin- 
gular and  unsound  opinion,  is,  I  am  well  aware,  by  no 
means  an  uncommon  one.  You  will  find  it  in  almost 
every  orthodox  controversial  work  that  has  ever  been 
written.  But  allow  me  to  quote  from  your  letter  a 
sentence  or  two.  The  first  remark  I  shall  notice  is 
this:  "Educated  as  you  have  been  from  early  child- 
hood in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  you  may  have 
been  led  to  suppose  that  your  belief  therein  has  been 
wholly  owing  to  the  accident  of  your  birth  and  educa- 
tion, and  the  bias  given  to  your  youthful  mind;  and, 
impressed  with  this  thought,  you  may  have  considered 
it  right  and  proper  to  examine  into  all  the  arguments 
urged  in  favor  of  an  opposite  belief."  I  will  interrupt 
the  quotation  here,  merely  to  say,  that  I  examined  into 
no  arguments  in  favor  of  an  opposite  belief,  till  I  hod 
examined  the  Bible.  I  endeavored  to  read  the  New 
Testament  as  if  I  had  never  seen  it  before,  and  it  was 
there  I  found  the  arguments  that  established  me  in  my 
present  belief;  it  was  from  thence  that  I  was  obliged 


AN   EXTRACT.  203 

to  avow  myself  a  Unitarian.  But  to  proceed  :  "  This 
course,"  you  observe,  "however  seemingly  wise,  is  not 
only  fraught  with  the  greatest  danger,  but  it  is  really 
characteristic  of  the  deepest  folly,  it  is,  I  believe,  the 
most  subtle  of  all  Satan's  schemes  to  mislead  the  sin- 
cere inquirer  after  truth.  Nay,  he  sometimes  docs 
proceed  a  step  further,  and  is  willing  to  allow  the 
inquirer  to  pray  for  Divine  guidance,  and  to  hold  the 
Bible  in  one  hand,  if  he  can  only  plant  heresy  in  the 
other.  There  is  no  way  to  see  the  truth  but  in  the 
light  of  the  truth ;  and  when  the  truth  is  once  estab- 
lished, no  counter  arguments  can  have  any  form  or 
validity.  This  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  all  rea- 
soning, else  nothing  can  be  established  or  relied  on. 
Now  if  I  can  prove  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  Scriptures,  I  will  hail  it  as  a  truth,  embrace  and 
rely  upon  it  as  a  truth,  nor  care  a  straw  for  all  the 
arguments  that  can  be  raised  in  opposition,  knowing, 
that  two  opposite  doctrines  cannot  be  substantiated  from 
the  same  premises." 

I  grant,  my  dear  Sir,  the  correctness  of  one  of  your 
remarks,  which  appears  to  me  to  be  a  self-evident 
proposition.  The  remark  to  which  I  allude  is  this, 
"There  is  no  way  to  see  the  truth  but  in  the  light  of 
the  truth."  But  the  conclusions  to  which  you  come 
from  such  correct  premises  are  by  no  means,  it  appears 
to  me,  correct  or  legitimate  ones.  The  reason  is  very 
obvious.  Conclusions  depend,  in  a  measure,  upon  the 
meaning  and  the  sense  which  we  give  to  the  terms  of 
our  starting  proposition.  Now,  by  the  expression,  "the 
light  of  the  truth,"  I  should  understand  that  light  which 
shines  from  the  whole  Bible.  I  regard  the  Bible  as  a 
harmonious  whole,  and.  as  such,  it  is  a  light  for  our 
feet,  and  a  lamp  to  our  paths.  In  the  light  which 


204  "THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  TRUTH." 

shines  from  the  Bible — as  from  one  undivided  source, 
as  from  a  central  sun — I  expect  to  discover  truth. 
But  by  the  same  expression  "  the  light  of  the  truth," 
you  seem  to  indicate  the  light  of  some  one  truth,  and 
that  a  truth  acknowledged  not  to  be  explicitly  stated 
in  direct  terms  anywhere  in  the  Bible — in  terms,  I 
mean,  such  as  these,  Jesus  Christ  is  the  infinite  God. 
The  truth  to  which  you  allude  is  only  inferential  To 
this  inferred,  obscurely  stated  truth,  taken  alone,  you 
would  make  everything  else  bend.  But  this  method, 
I  should  imagine,  will  prove  too  much  ever  to  make  it 
a  favorite  one  with  you.  Do  you  not  see,  that,  in  this 
way,  you  can  most  effectually  overturn  your  own  faith 
in  the  Trinity?  Take  the  certainly  revealed — explic- 
itly stated — and  firmly  established  truth  that  "  Jeho- 
vah is  one" — and  the  light  of  such  a  truth  as  this  is  a 
very  different  one  from  that  of  the  inferred  truth  to 
which  you  have  alluded,  as  different  as  the  light  of  the 
sun  is  from  that  of  a  feeble,  flickering  taper;  take,  I 
say,  the  truth  that  "Jehovah  is  one,"  and  how  can 
you  ever  consistently  prove,  according  to  your  own 
showing,  that  he  is  three?  Take  also  the  certain  truth 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  finite  man,  capable  of  suffer- 
ing, and  how  can  you  prove,  from  your  premises,  that 
he  is  the  infinite  God?  In  fact,  you  can  prove,  or  dis- 
prove anything  from  any  book,  by  following,  in  all  its 
parts,  the  method  you  propose.  Therefore,  though  we 
both  agree  to  the  proposition  that  "  there  is  no  way  to 
see  the  truth  but  in  the  light  of  the  truth,"  we  give  the 
terms  of  the  proposition  an  entirely  different  meaning; 
and  there  can  be  no  argument  between  two  or  more 
persons  till  they  agree  in  their  premises ;  nor  can  they 
be  said  to  agree  till  they  understand  in  t/ie  same  sense 
the  terms  of  those  premises. 


COLOSSIANS,    CHAP.    I.    AND   II.  205 

You  next  proceed,  my  dear  Sir,  to  question  me  thus : 
'  And  why  need  you,  Madam,  '  lay  again  the  founda- 
tion of  your  faith?'  Have  you  been  charmed  by  the 
seductive  voice  of  a  vain  philosophy?  Why  then  are 
you  wavering  and  unestablished  in  the  faitli  '  as  you 
have  been  taught?'"  These  interrogations  do  not 
appear  to  me  to  require  any  specific  answer,  since 
they  are  merely  founded  on  your  individual  senti- 
ments in  regard  to  matters  about  which  there  is  a  vast 
difference  of  opinion.  I  will  therefore  pass  on. 

You  now  call  my  attention  to  Colossians,  2d  chap- 
ter, and  8th  verse,  "  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you 
through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,"  &c.,  and  you 
say,  "Nowit'is  remarkable  that  the  Apostle,  in  this 
and  the  preceding  chapter,  had  been  teaching  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ — that  he  is  God 
over  all — the  Creator  of  the  Universe ; — and  that  by 
him  all  things  consist." 

I  am  far  from  admitting  that  the  first  and  second 
chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  teach  any- 
thing like  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
in  the  Trinitarian  sense.  Let  us  pause  for  a  while,  and 
examine  them  together.  In  the  second  and  third  verses 
God  and  Christ  are  spoken  of  as  distinct  beings.  So 
they  are  in  the  12th  and  13th  verses,  where  the  Father 
is  said  to  have  translated  believers  into  the  kingdom  of 
his  dear  Son.  In  the  15th  verse  this  Son  is  declared 
to  be  "  the  image  of  God,"  and  "  the  firstborn  of  every 
creature."  Now  the  "image"  of  anything  cannot  be 
the  thing  itself,  and  a  "creature"  cannot  be  the  Su- 
preme Creator.  In  the  two  succeeding  verses,  the  16th 
and  17th,  I  presume  you  find  your  chief  and  irresist- 
ible argument.  Let  us  therefore  give  them  a  special, 
and  earnest,  and  candid  examination. 
IS 


206  CREATION   BY   CHRIST    A    SPIRITUAL    ONE. 

But  first  let  me  make  a  simple  remark.  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  Apostle  was  writing  this  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  to  assure  them  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  under  a  new  dispensation  introduced  by  Christ, 
who  had  full  power  and  authority  for  this  end.  He 
was  opposing,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Judaizing  teachers, 
who  were  endeavoring  to  impose  upon  the  Christian 
Church  the  ritual  law; — and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
philosophizing  converts  from  heathenism,  who  were 
aiming  to  incorporate  with  the  new  religion  the  subtle- 
ties of  their  old  philosophy.  Paul  is  writing  to  remind 
them  of  the  fact  that  tlie  simple  religion  introduced  by 
Jesus  Christ  was  the  true  faith — that  which  they  had 
been  taught — and  in  which  they  were  to  continue. 
Now  let  us  examine  the  L6th  and  1 7th  verses,  with  this 
idea — namely,  that  he  was  writing  about  Christ's  new 
dispensation — strongly  impressed  upon  our  minds. 

You  will  observe  that  he  does  not  say  that  by  him 
were  heaven  and  eanh  created,  but  only  "all  things 
which  are  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  Now,  if  the  ex- 
pression "all  things"  can  be  proved  to  refer  to  the 
new  spiritual  creation  Christ  came  to  effect,  your  argu- 
ment, which  makes  it  prove  his  divinity  only  on  the 
supposition  that  it  refers  to  the  natural  creation,  falls 
entirely  to  the  ground. 

The  effects  produced  by  the  Gospel,  the  new  and 
radically  different  state  of  things  which  had  followed 
and  were  still  to  follow  its  introduction — are  very 
often  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  a  creation.  Turn 
to  Ephesians  ii.  10,  and  you  will  find  that  believers  are 
spoken  of  as  created  in  or  through  Christ  Jesus,  unto 
good  u-orks.  In  remarking  upon  this  verse,  Priestley 
says,  "  We  see  here  in  what  sense  Paul  sometimes 
uses  the  term  creation ;  viz.  as  denoting  the  renovation 


THE   TERM    "ALL    THINGS."  207 

of  the  world  by  the  Gospel ;  and  when  we  elsewhere 
in  the  Epistles  read  of  the  creation  of  all  things  by  Jesns 
Christ,  the  meaning  is  defined  and  explained  by  such 
passages  as  these." 

Again,  see  Eph.  i.  10,  "  That  in  the  dispensation  of 
the  fulness  of  times  he  might  gather  together  in  one 
all  things  in  Christ,  which  are  in  heaven,  and  which 
are  on  earth."  Here  we  have  the  very  same  expres- 
sion "all  things,"  certainly  applied  to  spiritual  exist- 
ence alone.* 

The  Apostle  then  goes  on  to  specify  what  he  meant 
by  the  term  "all  things."  "  Whether,"  says  he,  "  they 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  met  with  some  remarks  of  Professor 
Norton  upon  the  passage  we  are  considering ;  perhaps  they  will  interest 
you  and  serve  to  strengthen  my  position.  "In  this  passage,"  he  says, 
"  there  are  some  expressions  which  require  explanation.  God,  says  St. 
Paul, '  has  transferred  us  from  the  empire  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of 
his  beloved  Son.'  To  this  metaphor  much  of  the  following  language  cor- 
responds. It  was  this  kingdom  which  had  been  newly  created,  that  is,  had 
been  newly  formed ;  for  it  is  thus  that  the  word  rendered  created  is  to  be 
understood.  We  find  it,  and  its  correlatives,  repeatedly  used  iu  a  similar 
sense  by  St.  Paul,  namely,  to  denote  the  moral  renovation  of  men  by  Chris- 
tianity. Thus  he  says : — 

1  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature.  The  old  things  have 
passed  away,  behold,  all  things  have  become  new.'  2  Cor.  v.  17. 

'  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  is  circumcision  anything,  nor  uncircumcision, 
but  a  new  creature.'  Gal.  vi.  15. 

'  For  we  are  God's  workmanship,  created  through  Christ  Jesus  unto  good 
works.'  Ephes.  ii.  10. 

'Put  on  the  new  man,  who  is  created  in  the  likeness  of  God,  with  the 
righteousness  and  holiness  of  the  true  faith.'  Ephes.  iv.  24. 

"  The  language  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  in  which  Christ  is  said 
to  have  created  all  things,  is  to  be  explained  in  a  corresponding  manner.  He 
created  all  things  in  the  neio  dispensation,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  It 
has  been  understood  as  declaring,  that  the  natural  creation  was  the  work  of 
Christ.  But  it  is  obvious  at  first  sight,  that  the  words  used  are  not  such  as 
properly  designate  the  objects  of  the  natural  world;  and  not  such,  therefore, 
as  we  should  expect  to  be  employed,  if  these  were  intended.  In  speaking 
of  the  natural  creation,  the  same  Apostle  refers  it  to  God  in  different  terms — 
to  '  the  living  God,  who  made  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  things 
that  are  in  them.'  Acts  xiv.  15." 


208  THE    SPIRITUAL    CREATION. 

be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers ;" 
these  expressions  seem  plainly  to  show  that  he  does  not 
refer  to  the  material  creation.  Turn  to  Eph.  i.  21, 
and  you  will  observe  that  these  expressions  ';  princi- 
palities and  powers."  &c.,  refer  to  different  degrees  of 
spiritual  existence.  Some  understand  thcs3  titles  to 
have  relation  to  the  "  various  orders  of  angelic  beings/' 
and  suppose  this  text  asserts  "  Christ's  dominion  over 
the  angelic  world."  Schleusner  thinks  that  they  refer 
to  human  magistrates.  Others  think  that  they  "  most 
aptly  denote  the  several  ranks  of  dignity  and  authority 
in  the  Church,  viz.,  priests,  prophets,  apostles,  £c., 
over  all  of  whom  Jesus  is  elevated,  as  the  head  of  this 
new  dispensation."  Imp.  V.  Priestley  says  that  this 
verse  is  explained  by  the  next  one,  where  Christ  is  said 
to  be  "  head  over  all  things  to  the  Church." 

Norton,  in  commenting  on  Col.  i.  16,  says:  "But 
what  is  meant  by  the  Apostle  when  he  speaks  of  Christ 
as  creating  things  heavenly  and  unseen,  thrones,  prin- 
cipalities, governments,  and  powers?  I  answer,  that 
Christ  is  here  spoken  of  by  him  as  the  founder  and 
monarch  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and  that  this 
kingdom  is  conceived  of,  not  as  confined  to  earth,  but 
as  extending  to  the  blessed  in  heaven,  to  those  who 
have  entered,  or  may  enter,  on  their  reward.  Christ 
being  represented  under  the  figure  of  a  king,  and  his 
followers  being  those  who  constituted  the  subjects  of  his 
kingdom,  their  highest  honors  and  rewards  are  spoken 
of,  in  figurative  language,  as  thrones,  principalities, 
governments,  and  powers.  He  himself  said  to  his 
Apostles,  '  In  the  regeneration,'  that  is,  in  the  new  crea- 
tion, for  the  terms  are  equivalent — '  In  the  regenera- 
tion, when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of 
his  glory,  ye  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones,  judging  the 


THE    SPIK1TUAL    CREATION. 

twelve  tribes  of  Israel.'  But,  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
including  the  seen  as  well  as  the  unseen,  the  earthly 
as  well  as  the  heavenly,  the  terms  in  question  are  to 
be  understood,  not  merely  as  referring  to  the  rewards 
of  the  blessed  in  heaven,  but  as  denoting  likewise  the 
highest  offices  and  dignities  of  this  kingdom  on  earth  ; 
the  offices  of  those  who  were  ministers  of  Christ,  its 
king,  his  apostles  and  teachers.  The  purpose  of  St.  Paul 
is  to  declare,  that  Christ  is  the  former  and  master  of  the 
whole  Church  on  earth  and  in  heaven ;  of  the  whole 
community  of  the  holy ;  that  he  is  the  author  of  all 
their  blessings;  that  all  authority  among  them  is  from 
him ;  that  all  are  ruled  by  his  laws ;  that  the  whole 
kingdom  on  earth  and  in  heaven  exist  through  him, 
and,  figuratively  speaking,  '  for  him,'  as  its  monarch." 
iN'ow.  my  dear  Sir,  does  it  not  seem  certain  that  the 
creation  spoken  of  in  the  verses  we  have  been  con- 
sidering, is  entirely  a  spiritual  creation,  and  not  the 
natural  one ;  and,  if  not,  those  verses  do  not  support 
your  argument. 

But,  further,  let  this  creation  have  been  either  a 
natural  or  a  spiritual  one,  we  see  that  in  Ephesians  iii. 
9,  it  is  ascribed  to  GOD,  through  Christ.  Paul  there 
speaks  of  "  the  fellowship  of  the  mystery,  which  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world  hath  been  hid  in  God,  who 
created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  the  intent  that 
now  unto  the  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly 
places  might  be  known  by  the  Church  the  manifold 
wisdom  of  God."  Pitkins  says,  that,  "In  regard  to 
those  passages  which  represent  Christ  as  being  engaged 
in  the  works  of  Creation  and  Preservation,  it  is  the 
opinion  of  many  distinguished  Theologians  that  they 
refer  to  the  new  Spiritual  Creation  which  was  to  be 
formed  and  perpetuated  through  the  influences  of  the 
IS* 


210  THE  CREATION  BY  CHRIST. 

religion  which  he  established ;  and  not  to  the  formation 
and  upholding  the  world  of  matter.  They  contend, 
that  •  by  him  were  all  things  created,'  and  '  by  him  all 
things  consist,'  which  relate  to  his  Mediatorial  -King- 
dom merely,  he  being  '  Head  over  all  tilings  to  the 
Church? 

"  But,"  says  he,  "  whether  they  are  correct  or  not 
in  these  opinions,  does  not  in  the  least  affect  the  deci- 
sion of  the  question  now  before  us.  It  matters  not 
whether  our  Lord  is  engaged  in  the  works  of  creating 
and  upholding  the  material,  or  merely  the  moral  world. 
The  only  point  which  in  this  connexion  demands  our 
attention,  is,  does  he  create  and  uphold  as  the  Eternal 
God,  or  only  as  a  qualified  instrument  of  Divine 
Power?  In  reference  to  this,  hear  his  own  express 
declarations :  '  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing.' 
John  v.  30.  And  again,  John  v.  19,  20,  '  The  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  himself  but  what  he  seeth  the 
Father  do.'  '  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth 
him  all  things  that  himself  doeth.'  And  again,  John 
v.  26,  27,  '  The  Father  hath  given  to  the  Son  author- 
ity.' Again,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  '  All  power  is  given  unto 
me.'  Such  is  the  explicit  testimony  of  Jesus  himself. 
Much  more  of  a  like  character  might  be  added,  but 
more  is  not  needed.  Comment  upon  these  texts  seems 
to  be  superfluous.  They  most  obviously  show,  that 
whatever  Christ  performs,  is  in  consequence,  not  of  his 
own  underived  power,  but  by  authority  and  power 
delegated  to  him  as  the  highest  Agent  of  the  Deity." 

I  believe,  my  dear  Sir,  we  have  now  examined  all 
the  texts  preceding  the  verse  to  which  you  especially 
directed  my  attention,  namely,  "  Beware  lest  any  man 
spoil  you,"  &c.,  and  1  think  it  has  been  abundantly 
proved  that  they  do  not  teach  the  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ. 


AN   EXTRACT.  211 

But  I  will  quote  again  from  your  letter.  After 
asserting  that  Paul  had,  in  the  1st  and  2d  chapters  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  been  "  teaching  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,"  you  say,  "  He 
speaks  also  of  the  union  of  Christ  with  the  flesh,  and 
with  believers,  as  a  mystery ;  and  we  are  particularly 
admonished  '  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  mystery 
of  God  and  the  Father  and  of  Christ,'  and  further  to 
be  rooted  and  built  up  in  him,  (Christ,)  and  established 
in  the  faith,  '  as  ye  have  been  taught.'  Now  Paul  had 
just  been  teaching  the  Divinity — the  Almighty  power 
• — the  inherent  power — (for  the  work  of  creation  by 
proxy  is  a  downright  absurdity) — of  Jesus  Christ;  and 
then,  seemingly  aware  of  the  danger  to  which  the  Colos- 
sians would  be  exposed,  he  warns  them,  in  the  most 
solemn  and  energetic  manner,  to  continue  in  the,  faith 
which  they  had  been  taught" 

I  have  searched  diligently  to  find,  in  the  first  two 
chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  anything 
about  the  "mystery"  of  "  the  union  of  Christ  with  the 
flesh  ;"*  but  it  has  entirely  escaped  my  notice.  In 
the  25th  and  26th  verses  of  the  1st  chapter,  Paul 
speaks  of  the  "dispensation  of  God"  which  had  been 
given  him.  and  this  dispensation  he  calls  a  mystery,  or 
secret,  which,  says  he,  "  hath  been  hid  from  ages  and 
from  generations,  but  is  now  made  manifest  to  his 
saints"  and  thus  he  declares  the  mystery,  or  secret,  to 
exist  no  longer,  as  a  secret.  Again,  in  the  27th  verse, 
he  says,  "  To  whom  God  would  make  known  what  is 
the  riches  of  the  glory  of  this  mystery  among  the  Gen- 
tiles;" and  how  does  he  make  it  known?  What  does 

*  Even  according  to  Trinitarian  views,  Christ,  which  is  not  a  proper  name, 
but  only  means  the  Anointed — could  never  be  properly  said  to  he  united  with 
the  flesh,  for  it  was  only  "  the  flesh  "  which  could  be  "  the  Anointed." 


212  MYSTERY. 

he  declare  that  mystery  to  be  ?  He  declares  it  to  be, 
not,  as  you  say,  "  the  union  of  Christ  with  the  flesh," 
but,  says  he,  "which  is  Christ  in  you,  the  hope  of 
glory."  And  while  you  are  upon  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, I  wish  you  would  read  the  third  chapter  of  Ephe- 
sians,  where  Paul  often  speaks  of  a  mystery,  by  which 
he  means  the  new,  and,  to  the  Jews,  strange  doctrine 
of  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  same  covenant 
with  the  Jews ;  and  this  mystery,  he  saf  s,  may  be 
understood,  when  it  is  read.  Ephes.  iii.  1. 

Again,  in  Col.  ii.  2,  instead  of  exhorting  them,  as 
you  have  expressed  it,  to  the  acknowledgment  of  a 
mystery,  he  prays  for  as  many  as  had  not  seen  his 
face  in  the  flesh,  "  That  their  hearts  might  be  com- 
forted, being  knit  together  in  love,  and  unto  all  riches 
of  the  full  assurance  of  understanding,  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  mystery  of  God;" — Griesbach,  high 
Trinitarian  authority,  omits  the  rest  of  the  verse. 

This,  my  dear  Sir,  is  all  the  mystery  I  can  discover, 
after  the  most  diligent  search,  in  the  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture to  which  you  have  turned  my  attention  ;  namely, 
God's  design  to  bestow  salvation,  through  Christ,  upon 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles  ;  which  had  been  a  mystery,  or 
what  is  the  same  thing,  had  been  "hid  from  ages  and 
generations,"  but  now,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  "  is  made 
manifest"  and  is  constantly  spoken  of  as  a  mystery, 
or  secret,  which  had  been  revealed. 

I  will  only  touch  upon  your  remark  that  "  the  work 
of  creation  by  proxy  is  a  downright  absurdity,"  and 
observe  that  then  you  certainly  make  this  charge, 
namely,  that  of  teaching  an  absurdity,  against  the 
Scriptures.  For  whatever  the  creation  was  which  is 
there  ascribed  to  Christ — whether  a  natural  or  a  moral 
creation  was  intended,  it  is  certainly  ascribed  to  Christ 


CREATION   BY   PROXY.  213 

as  the  Agent  of  another.  See  Ephes.  iii.  9.  "God, 
who  created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ."  Heb.  i.  2. 
"  By  whom  he  (that  is,  God)  made  the  worlds." 

You  give  great  prominence  to  the  idea  that  I  have 
not  continued  in  the  faith,  as  I  have  been  taught.  Now 
do  you  mean  as  I  have  been  taught  by  St.  Paul,  or 
any  other  inspired  writer,  or  as  I  have  been  taught  by 
my  human  teachers  and  guides  ?  The  latter  must  be 
your  meaning,  for  you  are  complaining  of  me  because 
I  have  changed,  and  given  up  the  faith  in  which  I 
had  been  educated.  But  I  assert,  that  I  have  altered 
my  opinion  on  certain  points  because  I  find  that  the 
inspired  writers  taught  a  different  doctrine  from  that 
in  which  I  had  been  educated.  Yet  it  is  under  these 
circumstances,  when  I  now  profess  to  abide  entirely 
by  the  teaching  of  inspired  men,  that  you  complain  of 
me.  You  must  therefore  mean,  that  I  ought  to  con- 
tinue in  the  faith  which  I  derived  from  uninspired 
human  teachers.* 

Now,  as  I  think  your  application  of  that  text  a  very 
different  one  from  that  intended  by  St.  Paul,  who  was 
speaking  of  his  own  teaching,  with  a  knowledge  of  his 
own  special  inspiration,  and  not  of  the  teachings  of 
those  who  should  live  hundreds  of  years  after  him,  it 
does  not  by  any  means  produce  the  effect  you  intended. 
A  Roman  Catholic,  teaching  the  doctrines  of  transub- 
stantiation  and  the  worship  of  saints  and  saintly  relics, 
might  with  just  as  much  propriety  take  that  ground 
with  one  who  was  about  retracting  his  Roman  Catholic 
sentiments.  Aye,  he  could  do  it  with  vastly  more 
propriety ;  for  it  is  an  essential  part  of  his  system  that 
the  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  for  individuals  by 

*  See  Appendix  W. 


214  HUMAN    TEACHINGS    NOT    INFALLIBLE. 

the  Church.  But  this  idea  is  manifestly-  at  war 
with  the  fundamental  principles  of  Protestantism, 
and  I  feel  only  sorrow  and  surprise  when  I  hear 
such  sentiments  from  the  Protestants  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

But  it  is  time  to  make  another  quotation  from  your 
letter.  You  proceed  to  say,  "Beware  lest  any  man 
spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after 
the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world, 
and  not  after  Christ."  "  And  why  ?"  you  ask.  "  How 
were  they  in  danger  of  being  spoiled  through  philoso- 
phy and  vain  deceit?  What  is  the  point?  What  the 
danger  ?  The  9th  verse  answers  the  question,  '  For 
in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily.'  This  was  a  fact"  you  say,  "which  they 
were  warned  not  to  assail  with  human  reasonings." 

And  who,  my  dear  Sir,  has  assailed  the  fact  ?  No 
Unitarian,  that  I  am  aware  of,  has  stricken  that  verse 
out  of  his  Bible.  I  am  very  sure  I  have  not.  I  only 
believe  that  it  does  not  teach  what  you  assert  it 
teaches — namely,  that  because  the  fulness  of  God 
dwelt  in  Christ,  he  was  God  himself.  But  you  go  on 
to  say,  "Could  language  be  more  clear  and  precise? 
God,  who  declares  that  he  will  not  give  his  honor  to 
another,  and  who  claims  universal  and  undivided 
homage,  here  affirms  that  the^  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
dwells  in  Jesus  Christ ;  and  in  Phil.  2d  chapter,  that 
universal  homage  shall  be  paid  to  him.  To  suppose 
that  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  mere  human,  or  created  being, 
is  a  proper  object  of  Divine  worship,  is  an  absurdity 
too  great  for  even  Unitarians.  They  therefore  very 
modestly  deny  the  declarations  of  God  in  toto,  re- 
garding the  honor  of  Christ,  and  in  their  adorations 
to  God  the  Father,  sometimes  allude  to  the  Son  of 


WORSHIP   OF    JESUS    CHRIST.  215 

Mary,  for  whose  good  example's  sake  God  is  well 
pleased  to  bestow  blessings  upon  mankind.  My  soul 
sickens  to  hear  my  blessed  Saviour  so  dishonored.'' 

And  do  you  think  that  Unitarians  feel  no  sickening 
of  soul  when  they  see  that  men  will  not  believe  the 
words  of  Christ  himself,  when  he  asserts,  as  he  does 
incessantly,  his  inferiority  to  his  Father?  Do  they 
not  feel  pained  when  they  hear  men  insisting  that 
Supreme  worship  and  homage  belong  to  him  who 
said  to  his  disciples,  "  In  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me 
nothing;"  who  said  to  his  importunate  tempter, 
"  Thou  shall  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him 
only  shall  thou  serve;"  who,  when  his  disciples 
requested  to  be  taught  how  to  pray,  said,  "  When  ye 
pray,  say,  Our  Father,  who  art  in  heaven,"  &c.  1 
You  have  alluded  to  the  2d  chapter  of  Philippians, 
where  universal  homage  is  promised  to  Christ.  But 
does  it  follow  that  universal  homage  should  be  Su- 
preme homage?  And  why  have  you  overlooked  the 
most  important  words  in  the  whole  passage — the 
crowning  sentence — the  climax;  namely,  that  "every 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  TO 

THE  GLORY  OF  GoD  THE  FATHER?" 

But  I  have  done.  Your  remark  concerning  the 
terms  in  which  Unitarians  speak  of  Christ  in  their 
adorations  to  God  the  Father,  scarcely  merits  notice. 
I  can  only  say,  I  have  never  heard  such  terms  used. 
Unitarians  do  not  believe  lhal  for  the  sake  of  Christ's 
good  example,  God  bestows  blessings  upon  man- 
kind. We  believe  that  it  is  only  when  we  follow 
that  good  example  that  God  will  bless  us.  And  sup- 
posing you  had  heard  Jesus  called  "  the  Son  of 
Mary?"  Was  he  not  Mary's  son?  Was  he  not 


216  WORSHIP   OF   JESUS   CHRIST. 

born  in  Bethlehem,  and  was  he  not  subject  to  his 
parents  until  he  commenced  his  Heavenly  Father's 
work?  Until  you  can  find  no  more  heavy  charges 
against  Unitarians  than  that  they  call  Jesus  Christ 
the  Son  of  Mary,  you  cannot  justly  reproach  them, 
much  less  condemn  them. 


LETTER  XXVI, 


METHOD  OP  INVESTIGATION. 
MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

You  say  I  would  never  have  arrived  at  my  present 
conclusions  by  reading  the  Bible  alone,  and  insinuate 
that  I  have  received  my^ideas  from  Unitarian  books. 
You  forget  my  assertion,  in  a  letter  to  my  father,  that 
my  mind  was  satisfied  upon  the  subject  before  I 
had  read  a  single  Unitarian  author,  excepting,  of 
course,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  As  this 
matter  is  evidently  misunderstood,  I  will  give  a  par- 
ticular account  of  it. 

I  started  then  in  my  investigation,  with  one  idea 
firmly  fixed  in  my  rnind — this  idea  was  the  unity 
of  God,  which  doctrine  is  certainly  revealed  in  the 
Old  Testament.  This,  then,  I  considered  a  certain 
truth,  and  now  my  object  in  examining  the  New 
Testament  was  to  learn  whether  a  Trinity  was 
there  taught.  I  soon  discovered  another  certain  truth, 
namely,  that  Christ  was  a  distinct  being  from  God, 
and  another,  namely,  that  he  was  called  the  Son  of 
God ;  and  yet  another,  namely,  that  he  was  a  human 
being.  Here,  then,  were  several  certain  truths,  plainly 
revealed. 

19 


218  METHOD    OF   INVESTIGATION. 

But  I  soon  arrived  at  some  passages  which  seemed 
to  assert,  inferential ly,  that  Christ  was  God.  Here, 
then,  was  something  at  variance  with  those  certain 
truths  contained  in  the  same  revelation.  Here  was 
a  truth,  apparently  revealed,  which  contradicted  the 
certain  truth  of  the  Unity  of  God,  and  those  three 
other  certain  truths,  namely,  that  Christ  was  a 
distinct  being  from  God,  and  that  he  was  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  he  was  a  human  being.  These 
truths  were  contradicted;  but  still  I  saw  nothing 
about  the  Trinity. 

I  noted  down  these  passages,  and  read  on.  The 
rest  of  the  book  still  recognized,  in  the  plainest  and 
most  explicit  manner,  all  those  certain  truths  of  which 
I  have  spoken.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament certainly  proved  them.  Now  what  was  to 
be  done  with  those  texts  which  seemed  to  contradict 
them?  I  reasoned  with  myself  thus;  if,  in  reading 
any  other  book,  I  should  come  to  hints  and  state- 
ments which  seemed  to  contradict  the  plain  asser- 
tions, and  to  differ  from  the  general  scope  and  tenor 
of  the  work,  I  should  endeavor  to  give  to  those  hints 
and  statements  an  interpretation  arid  a  meaning  which 
would  harmonize  with  what  was  plainly  laid  down. 
To  do  this,  it  would  not  be  correct  nor  natural  for 
me  .to  assume  incredible  propositions.  This  would  be 
no  way  to  harmonize  discordant  ideas,  nor  to  recon- 
cile contradictions. 

But  this  strange  and  unnatural  plan,  it  appeared 
to  me,  had  been  pursued  with  the  Bible.  That  holy 
book  had  been  treated  as  we  should  not  think  it  right 
to  treat  any  other.  The  doctrine  that  Christ  pos- 
sessed two  natures,  a  finite  and  an  infinite  one,  had 
been  assumed  to  account  for  those  passages  where  he 


METHOD    OF    INVESTIGATION.  219 

seemed  to  be  spoken  of  as  God.  I  say  this  doctrine 
had  been  assumed,  for  it  is  nowhere  plainly  laid 
down.  This  course  I  could  not  justify,  and  what 
next  was  to  be  done? 

Was  it  not  possible  that  those  perplexing  passages 
might  be  interpreted  in  some  other  way?  If  they 
proved  what  they  were  said  to  prove,  namely,  that 
Christ  was  God,  they  proved  that  there  were,  at  the 
same  time,  one  only  God,  and  two  Gods;  and  that 
the  same  being  had  both  a  finite  and  an  infinite 
nature.  These  things  were  contradictions,  and  could 
not  be  proved  in  any  way;  nor  did  I  see  anything 
about  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  These  passages, 
then,  must  have  some  other  meaning.  I  now  read 
the  various  interpretations  of  learned  men,  both  Trin- 
itarians and  Unitarians,  and  was  soon  satisfied  that 
they  did  not  assert  the  deity  of  Christ,  but  that 
a  fair  interpretation  could  be  given  to  all  of  them, 
which  would  perfectly  harmonize  with  those  plainly 
revealed  truths,  of  which  I  have  spoken,  and  which 
were  likewise  taught  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
New  Testament.  These  passages,  then,  did  not 
teach  the  deity  of  Christ.  Christ  was  not  God — the 
Bible  was  consistent  with  itself — and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  existed  no  longer  in  my  mind  as  an 
article  of  faith. 

You  say  "you  should  be  lost  if  your  own  reason 
were  to  be  your  guide."  Your  expression  is  rather 
indefinite,  arid  it  depends  upon  what  your  exact 
meaning  is,  whether  or  not  I  can  agree  with  you. 
If  you  mean  that  it  would  be  dangerous — aye,  fatal 
— to  depend  on  reason  alone,  I  fully  and  heartily 
acquiesce  in  your  declaration.  But  if  you  mean 
that  reason  is  to  be  laid  entirely  aside,  I  cannot  at 


220  USE    OF    REASON. 

all  agree  with  you.  Without  reason,  of  what  possible 
use  would  a  revelation  be?  Place  the  Bible  in 
the  hands  of  an  idiot,  who  never  enjoyed  the  gift  of 
reason— or  of  a  madman,  whose  reason  had  been 
dethroned — and  what  a  mockery  yon  make  of  their 
sad  misfortunes?  You  cannot  then  mean  that  we 
are  to  make  no  use  of  reason.  But  if  you  believe 
that  with  the  revelation  from  our  Heavenly  Father  in 
our  hands,  we  are  to  use  our  utmost  efforts  to  ascer- 
tain w/iat  it  is  that  God  has  spoken,  why  then,  as  I 
said  before,  in  this  matter  we  entirely  agree.  I  am 
as  much  opposed  as  you  can  be  to  exalting  reason 
above  revelation — to  deciding  what  ought  and  what 
ought  not  to  be  in  the  Bible;  but  we  must  certainly 
use  our  highest  faculties  and  our  best  efforts  to  ascer- 
tain what  is  there.  And  if  the  Scriptures  anywhere 
seem  to  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  those  which 
they  have  elsewhere  plainly  taught,  we  are  bound, 
if  possible,  to  give  those  seemingly  discordant  pas- 
sages a  different  construction;  and  if,  as  may  be  the 
case,  we  cannot  find  out  what  they  mean,  we  must 
imitate  the  great  John  Locke,  and  humbly  say  so; 
and  we  must  patiently  wait  until  we  enter  upon 
a  more  perfect  state  of  existence,  when  all  will  be 
explained  to  us — when  all  that  is  dark  will  be 
brought  to  light — when  faith  will  be  exchanged  for 
sight. 

The  Rev.  John  Wesley,  in  his  controversy  with 
Toplady  concerning  Election,  said,  that  he  would 
not  believe  any  doctrine  which  charged  God  with 
unrighteousness.  No  words  nor  texts  of  Scripture, 
he  said,  would  compel  him  to  do  it.  So  I  say  in 
regard  to  the  Trinity.  No  words  nor  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture will  compel  me  to  believe  that  the  Bible  contra- 


USE    OF    REASON.  221 

diets  itself.  We  must  keep  reason  in  its  right  place, 
but  we  must  not  undervalue  it.  It  is  dangerous  to 
use  it  rashly,  but  it  is  quite  as  dangerous  not  to  use  it 
at  all.  There  is  danger  in  everything.  The  very 
fact  that  we  possess  reason  places  us  in  responsible 
circumstances ;  and  responsibility  implies  danger.  Our 
reason  is  the  highest  gift  of  God;  let  us  see  to  it 
that  we  neglect  not  "the  gift  that  is  in  us."  If  we 
make  no  use  of  our  reason,  would  not  our  Heavenly 
Father  justly  charge  us  with  the  guilt  of  hiding  our 
talent  in  the  earth?  Is  it  not  clear,  that  as  each 
man,  in  his  individual  capacity,  is  responsible  to  God, 
so  each  individual  must  sift  and  determine  this  matter 
for  himself?  At  the  same  time,  I  heartily  respond  to 
your  exclamation,  "  Let  him  that  thinketh  he  stand- 
eth,  lake  heed  lest  he  fall !" 

Again,  you  observe,  "  When  I  draw  instruction 
from  the  Bible,  I  like  to  take  the  whole  of  it."  My 
dear  Sir,  so  do  I.  And  this  is  a  great  Unitarian 
principle.  They  take  the  whole  Bible,  and  judge  of 
detached  passages  by  its  general  scope  and  tenor.  In 
this  position,  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  inform  you,  you 
will  find  yourself  sustained  by  the  whole  body  of  Uni- 
tarians. And  it  is  by  adhering  strictly  to  this  great, 
this  radical  principle  of  all  just  interpretation,  that 
they  arrive  at  Unitarianism. 

You  are  certainly  laboring  under  a  mistake  when 
you  assert  that  Unitarianism  "  would  persuade  men 
to  be  at  peace  with  themselves,  not  to  flee  from 
wrath."  Unitarianism  does  not  persuade  men  to  a 
false  peace.  It  is  not  an  easy,  indolent  religion. 
No,  no,  very  far  from  it.  Let  any  one  read  Dewey's 
Sermons  on  the  Law  of  Retribution,  and  see  whether 
Unitarianism  points  out  an  easy  road  to  heaven. 
19* 


222  PRINCIPLES    OF    UNITARIAXISM. 

"This  is  a  system,"  says  Dr.  Gaum-it.  "which 
requires  of  its  disciple  the  greatest  measure  of  good- 
ness that  he  can  render,  which  prohibits  every  indul- 
gence contrary  to  the  strictest  virtue,  and  imposes 
continual  effort  and  conflict.  Who  that  comprehends 
its  requisitions  would  ever  think  of  pronouncing 

them  light? Unitarianism  as  we  receive  it, 

the  patron  of  a  lax  morality  and  a  worldly  spirit! 
Verily,  it  requires  a  confidence  by  no  means  enviable 
to  make  such  an  assertion  in  the  face  of  everything 
that  has  been  said  by  advocate  and  by  opposer."* 

But.  the  fact  is,  I  know  of  no  easier  mode  of  arriving 
at  heaven,  than  by  the  Calvinistic  scheme,  if  that 
scheme  be  true.  To  depend  for  salvation  entirely 
upon  the  merits  of  another,  who  has  become  our 
substitute,  is  a  very  comfortable  thing.  But  then, 
under  these  circumstances,  what  moral  progress  can 
a  man  be  expected  to  make?  1  joyfully  acknowledge 
that  those  who  hold  this  faith  do  make  advances 
in  moral  growth  and  vigor;  but  I  believe  they  do 
it  in  the  very  teeth  of  their  creed,  they  do  it  because 
both  Scripture  and  common  sense  teach  them  that 
"  as  a  man  sows,  so  shall  he  also  reap."  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Unitarian  doctrine  that  men  are  to  be 
rewarded  hereafter  according  to  their  works,  while  it 
is  a  doctrine  of  reason  and  of  revelation,  is,  from  its 
very  nature,  a  prodigious  incentive  to  constant  watch- 
fulness and  warfare.  All  the  expressions  of  the 
Apostle  Paul,  in  regard  to  the  Christian's  life  of 
conflict  and  danger,  Unitarians  fully  understand,  ap- 
preciate, feel.  They  well  know  what  he  means  when 
he  speaks  of  "striving  for  the  mastery."  They  can 

*  See  Appendix  L. 


PRINCIPLES    OF    UNITAKIANISM.  223 

enter  into  his  feelings  of  joyful  exultation  when  he 
was  able  to  say,  "I  have  fought  the  good  fight." 
They  believe  the  Apostle  James  was  correct  when  he 
said,  that  "  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
faith  only."  They  attend  to  the  injunction  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  "  Be  diligent  that  ye  may  be  found  of 
him  in  peace,  without  spot,  and  blameless."  At 
the  same  time  they  believe  that  their  salvation  is  all 
of  grace,  or  favor;  that  it  is  obtained  through  the 
abounding  mercy  of  God,  in  Christ;  who  has  gra- 
ciously promised  to  forgive  the  sins,  and  to  overlook 
the  shortcomings  of  those  who  earnestly  repent  and 
endeavor  to  reform.  They  believe  that  the  lives 
which  they  live  in  the  flesh,  they  must  live  by  the 
faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  them  and  gave 
himself  for  them.  They  endeavor  to  follow  him — he 
is  their  example — and  thus  it  is  they  live  by  faith  in 
him — a  faith  which  will  inspire  them  with  zeal  and 
with  strength  to  follow  him  "fully." 

It  seems  strange  to  me,  that  any  one  can  believe 
that  the  requisitions  of  the  Unitarian  faith  are  easy; 
that  only  those  who  wish  to  lead  careless  lives  choose 
that  religion.  I  solemnly  declare  to  you,  that  I  hesi- 
tate now  at  many  things  which  I  formerly  deemed 
matters  of  trivial  importance.  My  standard  of  gospel 
morality  is  higher,  my  views  are  more  elevated, 
my  aspirations  after  moral  excellence  altogether  more 
ardent  than  they  were  before  my  change  of  views. 
I  earnestly  wish  that  my  standard  of  duty  had  been 
all  my  life  what  it  is  now ;  it  would  undoubtedly 
have  saved  me  a  vast  amount  of  sorrow  and  regret. 
At  the  same  time  I  frankly  confess,  that  many  things 
which  I  once  deemed  wrong  I  now  think  innocent.  I 
have  learned,  I  hope,  to  discriminate  more  justly 


PRINCIPLES    OF    UNITARIAN1SM. 

between  essentials  and  non-essentials;  and  1  am 
more  than  ever  persuaded  that,  instead  of  binding 
myself  by  certain  outward  rules  and  regulations,  the 
only  safe  and  certain  way  to  live  a  truly  Christian 
life,  is  to  see  faithfully  to  it  that  my  heart  is  right 
with  God. 


LETTER  XXVII, 


NO  HUMAN  CREEDS. 
Mv  DEAR  SIR  : 

You  remark  that  "it  is  a  vain  boast  of  Unitarians 
that  they  are  free  from  creeds — the  imposition  of 
men."  And  you  make  the  following  inquiry :  "When 
Unitarians  are  asked  about  their  faith,  do  they  not 
give  the  written  opinions  of  their  great  men — Dr. 
Channing  and  others?  And  very  various,"  you  ob- 
serve, "  their  faith  is." 

I  reply,  that  when  Unitarians  boast  that  they  have 
no  creeds  imposed  upon  them,  they  make  no  "vain 
boast."  It  is  a  delightful,  glorious  truth.  If  you  were 
to  ask  me  what  my  creed  was,  I  should  give  it  to 
you  in  the  words  of  Scripture.  Ah !  I  was  wrong. 
Unitarians  have  a  creed,  which  they  consider  binding 
upon  all.  It  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  But  if 
you  were  to  say,  "  This  does  not  satisfy  me;  you  and 
I  give  a  different  interpretation  to  these  very  words;  I 
wish  to  know  what  interpretation  Unitarians  generally 
give  to  those  passages."  I  might  then  refer  you  to  the 
works  of  their  standard  writers,  and  tell  you  that  you 
would  find  in  them  a  faithful  exhibition  of  the  Unita- 
rian faith.  But  I  would  tell  you  at  the  same  time 
that  no  individual  considers  himself  bound  to  adopt 


226  NO    HUMAN    CREEDS. 

the  views  of  any  other  individual,  even  of  Dr.  Chan- 
ning;  and  Dr.  Channing  himself  has  always  taken 
care  to  have  it  distinctly  understood,  that  he  is  only 
giving  his  individual  opinions.  Now,  referring  to  cer- 
tain writers  when  information  is  wanted,  and  being 
bound  by  a  creed,  are  very  different  things.  Again, 
you  inquire :  "  Is  it  not  true,  that  New  England  Unita- 
rians, finding  skepticism  so  rife  among  them,  are  about 
to  form  a  creed,  which  they  can  show  to  the  world  as 
some  fixed  representation  of  their  views  ? "  1  can  only 
say,  in  reply,  that  I  have  heard  of  nothing  of  the  kind. 
It  may  be  the  case,  however;  and  where  would  be  the 
harm?  And  how  would  such  a  proceeding  interfere 
with  their  great,  fundamental  principle,  that  each 
individual  is  accountable  for  his  opinions  to  God  alone? 
Surely,  when  the  religious  views  of  a  body  of  Chris- 
tians are  so  shamefully  misrepresented  and  so  gener- 
ally misunderstood,  as  those  of  Unitarians  are  by  their 
Orthodox  brethren,  it  is  high  time  that  the  world 
should  be  enlightened  on  the  subject;  it  is  high  time 
that  these  misrepresentations  should  be  exposed,  and 
these  misunderstandings,  if  possible,  removed.  And, 
as  to  the  assertion  that  skepticism  is  "  rife  among 
them,"  I  should  like  to  know  where  it  is  not?  And  is 
Unitarianism  to  answer  for  the  faults  of  its  professors? 
Are  Unitarians,  as  a  body,  to  be  held  responsible  for 
the  speculations  of  those  who  call  themselves  by  that 
name  ?  Then  Heaven  have  mercy  upon  us  all ! 

But  you  go  on  to  say:  "Should  my  dear  friend  be 
suffered  to  '  believe  a  lie,'  and  embrace  fully  the  doc- 
trines she  now  avows,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  witness 
in  her  downfall  and  apostacy  from  the  truth,  as  it  is 
in  Jesus,  the  truth  of  that  fearful  declaration,  '  the  last 
state  of  that  man  is  worse  than  the  first.'  But  I  hope 


WHO  ARE  CHRIST'S  FRIENDS?  227 

otherwise  of  you,  though  I  thus  write.  Let  me  ad- 
monish you  to  be  '  slow  to  speak '  on  this  subject,  to 
weigh  well  and  deliberate  long  before  you  embark 
upon  this  sea  of  religious  barrenness  and  unfruitful- 
ness,  and  before  yoi!  take  the  fatal  step  which  will 
separate  you  from  the  real  friends  of  the  Saviour." 

And  who,  my  dear  Sir,  are  the  real  friends  of  the 
Saviour  ?  How  shall  we  decide  this  important  ques- 
tion 1  Did  not  our  Saviour  himself  teach  us  how  to 
decide  it  when  he  said,  "  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do 
whatsoever  I  command  you?"  The  religion  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  a  practical  religion.  When  he  came  to  save 
us — to  die  for  us — he  came  to  show  us  how  we  might 
be  saved — to  tell  us  what  we  should  do  to  be  saved. 
He  never  told  us  exactly  how  we  should  reason,  nor, 
as  the  Athanasian  creed  does,  what  we  should  "think;" 
he  laid  down  a  few  fundamental  facts,  and  gave  a 
number  of  plain  commands ;  they  are  exceedingly 
comprehensive  and  simple ;  they  are  so  plain,  thanks 
be  to  God,  that  he  who  runs  may  read;  but  further 
than  this  he  did  not  go,  nor  did  his  Apostles. 

Another  correspondent  tells  me  that  I  have  "wound- 
ed the  Saviour  in  the  house  of  his  friends."  By  this  I 
suppose  is  meant  what  you  have  more  explictly 
expressed  in  the  quotation  upon  which  I  have  been 
remarking;  namely,  that  those  who  belong  to  the 
church  or  "house"  from  which  I  have  separated  my- 
self, are  his  friends;  arid  that  the  church  or  "house" 
to  which  I  have  gone,  is  composed  of  his  enemies. 
What  right  has  any  church  to  arrogate  to  itself  the 
peculiar  title  of  "friends"  of  Christ,  in  opposition  to 
those,  who,  acknowledging  Christ  as  their  Lord  and 
Master,  are  striving  to  "do"  his  commandments — aye, 
and  doing  them  too,  if  we  may  be  allowed  to  judge  by 


228  THE   LOST   SHEEP. 

their  lives  of  purity  and  benevolence  ?  It  is  high  time 
that  men  were  judged  by  their  fruits,  and  not  by  their 
orthodoxy.  It  is  high  time  to  learn  that  piety  consists 
in  what  we  "do,"  and  not  in  what  we  say.  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  understood  as  conveyihg  the  idea  that  our 
religious  belief  is  not  of  consummate  Importance.  I 
know  that  it  is ;  for  our  belief  influences  our  condurf : 
but,  in  the  present  day,  some  men  are  too  apt  to  rest 
satisfied  with  their  orthodoxy.  It  must,  at  least,  be 
acknowledged,  that  things  have  that  appearance,  when 
men  are  not  willing  to  allow  the  name  of  Christians 
to  those  whose  speculative  opinions  they  consider 
unorthodox,  even  when  they  seem  to  bring  forth  "  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  love,  joy,  peace,"  &c.  Let  us  wel- 
come as  Christians  all  who  are  earnestly  endeavoring 
to  do  what  their  Lord  has  commanded,  whatever 
interpretation  they  may  give  to  certain  passages  of 
Scripture,  and  however  they  may  decide  certain  ques- 
tions which  do  not  in  the  least  affect  the  question  of 
their  Master's  authority. 

Another  of  your  remarks  is  of  the  same  character  as 
that  I  have  just  noticed.  "Surely,"  you  say,  "you 
will  not  be  permitted  thus  to  wander  from  the  fold  of 
Christ  to  be  devoured  by  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing ;  I 
cannot  believe  that  you  will  finally  depart ;  but  1  shud- 
der to  think  of  the  severe  chastisements  which  may  be 
necessary  to  bring  you  back."  I  trust,  rny  dear  Sir, 
you  do  not  believe  that  I  have  wilfully  wandered  from 
what  you  assert  to  be  the  fold  of  Christ ;  and  if  I  am 
anxiously  seeking  for  the  truth,  even  in  dangerous 
paths,  I  do  not  see  why  you  should  suppose  my  Hea- 
venly Father  would  find  it  necessary  to  scourge  me 
back  again.  When  the  shepherd  left  his  ninety  and 
nine  sheep  to  go  and  seek  for  the  one  which  had  wan- 


EXTRACTS   AND    REPLY.  229 

dered  away  and  was  lost,  we  read  that  when  he  had 
found  it,  he  did  not  scourge  it  back  to  the  fold,  but 
laid  it  "on  his  shoulders,  rejoicing."  Was  not  this 
parable  intended  as  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the 
untiring  love  of  our  Heavenly  Father  ?  And  in  regard 
to  the  expression,  "  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing,"  1  am 
charitable  enough  to  suppose  that  you  used  it  as  a 
mere  figure  of  speech,  without  any  definite  meaning, 
or  particular  application.  But,  //  you  intended  to 
apply  it  to  Unitarians,  I  will  only  ask  you  to  compare 
the  controversial  writings  of  the  Orthodox  and  of  Uni- 
tarians, and  then  candidly  tell  me  to  which  you  think 
the  term  "wolves"  will  most  legitimately  apply. 

Your  wish,  so  kindly  expressed,  "  that  I  could  have 
been  saved  from  bringing  such  a  deep  and  lasting 
reproach  upon  our  holy  religion,  exhibits  both  your 
love  for  me,  and  your  zeal  for  religion.  But  permit 
me  to  say,  that,  in  this  instance,  I  fear  your  zeal  is 
more  for  certain  dogmas  which  you  think  essential  to 
religion,  than  for  religion  itself.  And  if  I  bring  "  a  deep 
and  lasting  reproach"  upon  such  an  exclusive  system, 
I  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  thank  God,  and  go  for- 
ward. That  is  just  what  I  would  wish  to  do.  If  I 
can  convince  any  person,  be  that  person  ever  so  insig- 
nificant, that  a  rigid  adherence  to  certain  tenets  is  not 
religion,  I  shall  not  have  suffered  in  vain. 

One  of  my  friends  alluded,  in  a  letter  to  me,  to  the 
':  awful  lengths"  to  which  I  had  gone.  I  was  startled, 
and  feared  that  my  friend  was  under  some  impres- 
sion for  which  there  was  no  foundation.  I  wrote  to 
request  that  friend  to  tell  me  in  plain  language,  with- 
out any  figurative  embellishment,  exactly  what  was 
intended  by  the  expression.  The  reply  was,  "  I  know 
not  of  anything  more  awful  than  the  crime  of  crucify- 
20 


230  EXTRACTS   AND   REPLY. 

ing  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  putting  him  to  open 
shame."  This  was  discouraging;  1  had  asked  for 
plain  language,  and  I  received  a  reply  couched  in 
highly  figurative  terms.  I  protest  against  this  method 
of  arbitrary  personal  application  of  figurative  language. 
It  is  not  reasonable,  it  is  not  fair.  Such  charges  can- 
not be  met.  A  question  of  interpretation  must  first  be 
raised  and  settled.  We  must  first  decide,  with  mathe- 
matical precision,  what  course  of  conduct  amounts  to 
"  the  crime  of  crucifying  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and 
putting  him  to  open  shame." 

I  will  conclude  this  communication  by  merely  mak- 
ing a  remark  or  two  upon  the  following  sentence  of 
your  letter.  "  You  must  admit,"  you  observe,  "  that 
your  change  will  be  followed  by  most  serious  conse- 
quences. Your  writings  and  opinions  have  been  pub- 
lished to  the  world.  I  cannot  imagine  what  the  effect 
will  be.  Your  new  friends  cannot  receive  the  truths 
contained  in  them,  and  what  good  effect  can  they 
produce  on  others  when  they  learn  that  the  writer  has 
herself  renounced  them  1" 

I  have  somewhere  met  with  the  remark,  that  "reli- 
gion is  a  sentiment,  and  not  a  science."  This  very 
important  distinction  I  wish  my  friends  would  endea- 
vor to  bear  in  mind.  The  power  of  religion  over  my 
heart  will  be  in  proportion  as  I  bow  with  reverence, 
and  submit  with  childlike  confidence,  to  the  will  and 
authority  of  my  Heavenly  Father,  and  of  his  author- 
ized messenger,  Jesus  Christ ;  and  not  in  proportion  to 
my  supposed  understanding  of  the  essence  or  nature 
of  either  God  or  Christ.  Viewing  religion  in  this  light 
— as  an  all-absorbing  sentiment — I  have  not  changed 
at  all.  I  have  not  "renounced"  the  "sentiments" 
contained  in  my  published  writings.  They  are  dearer 


EXTRACTS   AND    REPLY.  231 

to  me  than  ever.  And,  moreover,  my  "  new  friends," 
by  which  phrase  you  mean  Unitarians,  can  and  do 
"receive  the  truths"  they  contain,  with  the  exception 
of  an  occasional  recognition  of  certain  doctrines.  I 
have  never  endeavored  to  settle  disputed  abstract 
questions ;  what  I  have  written  has  been  merely  the 
outpouring  of  my  heart ;  a  heart  wounded  by  affliction, 
and  seeking  to  sustain  itself  in  God,  my  Father,  and 
in  Christ,  my  Saviour.  It  is  my  happiness  to  know 
that  many  Unitarians  have  had  their  faith  strength- 
ened by  a  simple  recital  of  what  God  had  done  for  one 
of  his  afflicted  children, — and  have  joined  with  me  in 
my  songs  of  triumph,  gratitude,  and  praise. 


LETTER  XXVIII, 


EXTRACTS  AND  REPLIES. 
MY  DEAR  SIR: 

You  speak  of  the  "shock"  you  experienced  when 
I  "  announced  myself  as  decidedly  constrained  to  give 
up  all  on  which  your  hopes  rest  for  the  salvation  of 
your  soul."  If  you  really  believe  that  I  have  given 
up  all  on  which  the  sinner's  hope  can  hang,  I  do  not 
wonder  you  are  shocked.  But  surely  you  cannot 
think  so.  How  shall  I  convince  you  that  I  still  rely 
for  salvation  upon  Him,  who,  we  are  taught,  is  "  the 
way,  the  truth,  and  the  life."  Jesus  said,  "No  man 
cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  me."  It  is  by  him  that 
I  go  to  the  Father.  What  more  can  you  desire,  what 
more  can  I  say  ?  I  believe,  as  fully  as  you  do,  in  the 
atonement,  though  you  and  I  may  differ  about  the 
philosophy  (if  I  may  so  speak)  of  that  atonement.  * 

Again,  you  say,  "Would  to  God  that  I  could,  with 
the  Bible  in  my  hand,  believe  that,  as  you  have  ex- 
pressed it,  if  you  are  in  an  error,  it  is  not  a  fatal  one. 
...  I  fully  believe,"  you  elsewhere  say,  "  that  in 
renouncing  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
you  renounce  the  whole  system  of  salvation  by  grace, 
through  faith  in  Him  as  the  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin ; 
and  that,  dying  in  your  present  belief,  your  soul  must 


SCRIPTURE    TESTS.  233 

be  lost;  while  you  profess  to  think  that  you  have 
found  'a  glorious  platform'  on  which  sincere  Chris- 
tians of  every  denomination  can  meet,  and  exchange 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship."  You  further  write, 
"You  or  we  must  be  fatally  wrong.  It  seems  plain  to 
me  that  Christ  is  God — or,  with  reverence  let  me  write 
it — a  blasphemer ;  and  that  if  you  rob  .him  of  his 
'  eternal  Godhead,'  you  rob  him  of  the  glory  that  is 
his  due.  How  then  can  you  feel  hurt  that  your 
friends  express  themselves  so  strongly?" 

When  I  consider  what  your  professed  belief  upon 
this  subject  is,  I  really  cannot  wonder  at  your  strong 
expressions;  but  I  do  wonder  that  you  can  believe 
there  is  a.  fatal  difference  between  us.  You  surely  can- 
not believe  that  the  souls  of  some  whom  I  could  name, 
who  have  died  in  the  Unitarian  faith,  are  lost.  Show 
me  where  either  our  Master  or  his  apostles  declared 
that  a  belief  in  him,  as  the  eternal  God,  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  I  will  acknowledge  that  you  have  good 
reason  for  this  item  of  your  faith;  but  all  I  can  see 
that  they  ever  gave  as  a  test  of  Christian  faith  was 
such  a  belief  in  Jesus,  as  the  Messiah,  as  would  cause 
men  to  yield  implicitly  to  his  authority.  They  never 
say  it  is  necessary  to  our  salvation  to  be  certain  whe- 
ther that  authority  is  entirely  his  own,  or  is  derived 
from  his  Father;  though,  at  the  same  time,  they  tell 
us  plainly  enough  from  whence  it  really  comes.  Yet 
that  is  never  made  a  prominent  and  necessary  article 
of  belief.  The  main  point  of  inquiry  is,  dost  thou 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ — that  is,  the  anointed 
— he  who  was  to  come  1  If  we  believe  that  he  came 
commissioned  by  God,  we  shall  obey  him,  and  thus 
be  his  followers ;  and,  of  course,  entitled  to  the  Chris- 
tian name.  When  the  belief  of  Unitarians  leads  them 
20* 


234  SCRIPTURE    TESTS. 

to  reject  the  authority  of  Christ,  it  will  be  time  to  deny 
them  the  name  of  Christians  ;  but  when  they  recognize 
that  authority  as  fully  and  as  joyfully  as  you  do.  how 
can  you  consistently  assert  that  they  arc  not  Chris- 
tians ? 

I  repeat  it,  we  are  merely  told  in  the  Scriptures, 
that  we  must  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
we  shall  be  saved.  And  we  must  see  to  it  that  we 
have  such  a  faith  in  Christ  as  will  bring  forth  fruit 
unto  holiness ;  for  we  are  also  informed  that  without 
holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.  Now,  this  is  all 
which  the  Scriptures  declare  to  be  necessary  to  salva- 
tion ;  namely,  faith  showing  itself  by  works.  If  you 
can  show  me  one  passage  in  which  it  is  declared  that 
we  must  regard  him  who  was  sent  by  God  as  God 
himself — the  same  being  by  whom  he  was  sent — the 
case  will  be  radically  altered,  and  I  will  allow  that 
you  are  right  when  you  insist  that  I  am  in  a  fatal 
error.  But  until  you  can  show  me  some  such  passage 
— for  I  want  no  inferences  in  regard  to  fundamental 
doctrines — beware  how  you  judge  concerning  my 
future  prospects ;  beware  how  you  add  to  the  word  of 
God. 

I  wish  to  make  a  short  quotation  from  the  admirable 
speech  of  Sir  George  Saville  before  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, in  1772,  in  support  of  a  petition  presented  by 
many  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England  for  relief 
in  the  matter  of  subscription.  "  If  the  things  which 
are  necessary  to  salvation,"  says  he,  "are  not  plainly 
revealed,  there  is  no  way  of  salvation  revealed  to  the 
bulk  of  mankind.  Whatever  is  obscurely  revealed 
will  be  always  obscure,  notwithstanding  our  decisions. 
It  can  never  be  authoritatively  determined  by  men. 
The  only  authority  which  can  explain  it,  and  make 


TESTIMONIES    OF    TRINITARIANS.  235 

the  explanation  a  test  of  faith,  is  the  authority  of  God. 
As  to  what  he  has  plainly  revealed,  it  needs  no  articles 
to  ascertain  its  meaning.  We  should  not  then  adopt 
views  and  measures  which  are  contracted  and  narrow. 
We  should  not  set  bars  in  the  way  of  those  who  are 
willing  to  enter  and  labor  in  the  Church  of  God.  When 
the  disciples  came  to  Christ,  and  complained  that 
there  were  some  who  cast  out  devils  in  his  name,  and 
said,  '  We  forbade  them,  because  they  followed  not  us' 
— what  did  our  Saviour  do '?  Did  he  send  them  tests 
and  articles  to  be  subscribed  ?  Did  he  ask  them 
whether  they  believed  this,  or  that,  or  the  other  doc- 
trine? whether  they  were  Athanasians,  or  Arians,  or 
Arminians?  No.  He  delivered  that  comprehensive 
maxim — '  He  that  is  not  against  me,  is  for  me.'  Go 
ye,  and  say  likewise." 

But  I  can  bring  some  names  of  high  authority  who 
did  not  think  as  you  do  upon  this  subject.  DR.  DOD- 
DRIDGE,  it  seems,  was  not  willing  to  deny  the  name  of 
Christian,  nor  to  refuse  "  the  right  hand  of  fellowship," 
to  those  who  could  not  believe  in  the  Trinity.  Dr. 
Kippis,  in  the  Biographia  Britannica,  vol.  v.,  p.  307, 
thus  writes:  "Once  I  remember  some  narrow-minded 
people  of  his  (Dr.  Doddridge's)  congregation  gave 
him  no  small  trouble  on  account  of  a  gentleman  in 
communion  with  his  church,  who  was  a  professed 
Arian,  and  who  otherwise  dissented  from  the  common 
standard  of  orthodoxy.  This  gentleman  they  wished 
either  to  be  excluded  from  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  or  to  have  his  attendance  upon  it  prevented ;  but 
the  doctor  declared,  that  he  would  sacrifice  his  place, 
and  even  his  life,  rather  than  fix  any  such  mark  of 
discouragement  upon  one,  who,  whatever  his  doctrinal 
sentiments  were,  appeared  to  be  a  true  Christian." 


236  TESTIMONIES    OF    TRIN1TAKIANS. 

DR.  BURTON  says:  "I  would  willingly  admit,  that 
salvation  may  be  obtained  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed.  Thousands  and  millions  of  Chris- 
tians have  gone  to  their  graves,  who  have  either  never 
heard  of  it,  or  never  understood  it ;  and  I  would  add, 
that,  let  a  man  believe  the  Scriptures,  let  him  profess 
his  faith  in  Christ  in  the  plain  and  simple  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  he  may  pass  through  life  as 
piously  and  happily,  he  may  go  to  his  grave  with  as 
quiet  a  conscience,  and,  more  than  this,  he  may  rise 
again  as  freely  pardoned  and  forgiven,  as  if  he  had 
dived  into  the  depths  of  controversy,  and  traced  the 
nature  of  the  Deity  through  the  highest  walks  of  met- 
aphysics." Theol.  Works,  vol.  1,  Serm.  xii.,  p.  283. 

BISHOP  WATSON  says,  when  speaking  of  the  Duke  of 
Grafton,  who  joined  the  famous  Essex  Street  Chapel, 
under  the  pastoral  care  of  the  venerable  confessor,  the 
Rev.  Theophilus  Lindsey, — "I  never  attempted  to 
discourage  his  profession  of  Unitarian  principles ;  for  I 
was  happy  to  see  a  person  of  his  rank  professing,  with 
intelligence  and  sincerity,  Christian  principles.*  If 
any  one  thinks  that  an  Unitarian  is  not  a  Christian,  I 
plainly  say,  without  being  an  Unitarian  myself,  that  I 
think  otherwise"  Watsoris  Life,  vol.  i.,  pp.  75,  76. 
See  also  vol.  ii.,  p.  227.  See  also  the  remarks  of  D. 
Turner  of  Abingdon,  in  his  Free  Thoughts  on  Free 
Inquiry,  &c.,  where  he  says,  "We  should  not  deny 
them  the  honor  of  the  Christian  name." 

DR.  PARR  speaks  thus:  "  Undisguisedly  and  indig- 
nantly, I  shall  ever  bear  testimony  against  the  unchar- 

*  This  reminds  me  of  a  circumstance  which  recently  occurred  within  my 
own  knowledge.  A  clergyman  visiting  a  lady  who  Lad  been  brought  up  in 
the  Presbyterian  church,  but  who  was  then  attending  the  Episcopal,  said  to 
her,  "Madam,  I  hope  soon  to  see  you  a  good  Presbyterian."  "Sir,"  she 
replied,  "  1  would  much  rather  be  a  good  Christian." 


TESTIMONIES    OF    TRINITARIANS.  2J7. 

itable  spirit  which  excludes  the  followers  of  iSocinus 

utterly  from  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ 

Without  professing  any  partiality  for  Unitarians,  1 
hold  that  they  who  acknowledge  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the 
Messiah  ;  to  have  had  a  direct  and  special  commission 
from  the  Almighty,  to  have  been  endowed  supernatur- 
ally  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  have  worked  miracles, 
and  on  the  third  day  to  have  risen  from  the  dead, — I 
hold,  that  men,  thus  believing,  have  a  sacred  claim  to 
be  called  Christians."  Parr's  Works,  vol.  vii.,  pp. 
9,  10. 

Honor  be  to  those  liberal-hearted  men !  There  is, 
of  a  truth,  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity.  Why  can 
we  not  all  forget  our  differences,  and  go  to  work  toge- 
ther for  the  advancement  of  our  Master's  cause — for 
the  spread  of  our  Master's  kingdom  ?  The  enemies  of 
Christ  are  taking  the  advantage — an  advantage  not  to 
be  despised — of  the  want  of  union  and  confidence 
among  his  professed  disciples.  And  let  us  all  remem- 
ber the  solemn  remark  of  the  immortal  Baxter, 
"  Whilst  we  are  wrangling  here  in  the  dark,  we  are 
dying,  and  passing  to  the  world  that  will  decide  all 
our  controversies,  and  the  safest  passage  thither  is  by 
peaceable  holiness." 


LETTER  XXIX, 


CAUSES  OF  INFIDELITY. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

I  HAVE  frequently  heard  it  asserted  of  late  that  the 
present  age  is  preeminently  an  age  of  infidelity,  and  I 
have  unhesitatingly  assented  to  the  proposition.  I  did 
so  because  I  thought  that  a  belief  in  certain  dogmas 
was  a  necessary  part  of  a  belief  in  Christianity  itself; 
and  it  appeared  to  me  quite  certain  that  those  peculiar 
dogmas  were  losing  their  hold  upon  the  minds  of  men. 
Therefore  it  was  that  I  verily  thought  that  Chris- 
tianity itself  was  every  day  becoming  far  less  valuable 
to  the  majority  of  men.  And  it  may  be  so ;  I  do  not 
pretend  to  judge.  If  it  be  true  that  infidelity  is  on  the 
increase,  is  it  not  in  a  great  measure  owing  to  the  fact 
that  tests  are  required  by  those  who  think  they  hold 
ecclesiastical  authority,  to  which  men,  who  value 
religious  freedom,  and  the  right  of  private  judgment, 
will  not  submit? 

It  appears  to  me  that  Hume  was  not  far  from  the 
truth  when  he  jeeringly  asserted,  that  the  popular 
theology  had  "a  kind  of  appetite  for  absurdity,  and 
contradiction."  And  he  really  seems  to  have  had  in 
his  mind  persons  very  much  like  some  of  those  who 
live  in  the  present  day,  when  he  speaks  of  "devout 


CAUSES   OF   INFIDELITY.  239 

votaries,  who  desire  an  opportunity  of  subduing  their 
rebellious  reason  by  the  belief  of  the  most  unintel- 
ligible sophisms."  What  Hume,  the  infidel,  spoke 
in  derision,  many  sincere  Christians  earnestly  believe 
and  lament.  The  illustrious  Duke  of  Grafton  declared 
it  to  have  been  his  opinion  that  the  Christian  religion 
"having  been  corrupted  from  very  early  times  by 
various  means,  and  these  corruptions  having  been 
mistaken  for  essential  parts  of  it,  had  been  the  cause 
of  rendering  the  whole  religion  incredible  to  many 
men  of  sense."  And  Dr.  Priestley,  in  a  letter  to  his 
friend  Mr.  Lindsey,  speaking  of  an  unbeliever  with 
whom  he  had  been  conversing,  says,  "  He,  like  thou- 
sands of  others,  told  me,  that  he  was  so  much  disgusted 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  church  of  England,  especially 
the  Trinity,  that  he  considered  the  whole  business  as 
an  imposition,  without  further  inquiry." 

Now  it  is  no  crime  to  doubt.  The  moment  a  man 
honestly  doubts,  he  shows  his  anxiety  to  believe  on 
correct  principles.  And  if  men  were  permitted  to 
doubt,  without  having  the  hue  and  cry  of  "infidel" 
raised  against  them, — if  men's  doubts  were  more 
respected,  they  would  be  more  calmly  and  earnestly 
met,  and  there  would  be  less  infidelity  in  the  world. 
Many  an  honest  and  independent  mind,  in  its  search 
after  truth,  has  become  "disgusted"  at  the  injustice 
with  which  it  has  been  treated,  has  given  up  the 
search  altogether,  and  taken  refuge  in  the  gloomy 
shades  of  infidelity,  rather  than  encounter  the  scorch- 
ing heat  of  bigotry.  It  is  a  man's  own  fault,  I  con- 
fess, if  he  allow  himself  thus  to  be  worried  from  the 
field,  and  driven  from  the  object  of  his  search ;  but 
there  is  a  fault  elsewhere.  It  requires  a  love  for  truth 
which  few  men  possess  to  be  willing  to  brave  opposi~ 


240  CAUSES   OF    INFIDELITY. 

tion,  and  to  encounter  fanaticism  and  intolerance  for 
its  attainment. 

An  attentive  and  candid  observer  of  the  current 
literature  of  the  present  age  cannot  fail  to  be  struck 
with  the  fact,  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  does 
not  hold  that  place  which  it  deserves  in  the  affections 
of  popular  writers.  In  searching  for  a  reason  for  this 
melancholy  fact,  will  it  not  be  apparent  that  it  is 
mainly  owing  to  the  false  ideas,  so  generally  preva- 
lent, of  what  religion  is,  and  in  what  it  consists? 
It  is  fashionable  to  make  religion  consist  in  a  formal 
assent  to  certain  inferential  propositions,  contained  in 
the  formulas  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  and  not  in  an 
assent  to  the  simple  truths  of  the  Bible  as  each  man 
is  able  to  collect  them  for  himself.  Men  whose  minds 
have  been  liberalized  by  general  study,  and  strength- 
ened by  habits  of  original  thought,  will  not  be  thus 
trammelled.  They  plainly  perceive  that  they  can 
form  as  correct  a  judgment  of  the  truths  of  the  Bible 
as  other  men,  and  they  claim  the  privilege  of  doing 
it.  But,  by  common  consent,  they  cannot  be  admitted 
into  the  Christian  community  till  they  are  willing  to 
receive  certain  dogmas  to  which  the  majority  of  the 
Christian  world  have  pledged  themselves.  Hence,  it 
is  too  often  the  case,  that,  unless  religion  has  taken  a 
powerful  hold  of  their  affections,  they  turn  away  in 
discouragement  or  displeasure  from  the  whole  concern. 
Thus  religion  is  made  to  suffer  for  the  sad  mistakes 
which  are  committed  in  her  name. 

When  the  public  mind  has  been  unnaturally  strained 
in  one  direction,  a  corresponding  rebound  in  the 
opposite  one  may  always  be  expected.  Look  at  Ger- 
many, and  see  an  illustration  of  this  general  rule. 
Her  theologians,  having  burst  asunder  the  fetters  in 


SIGNS   OF    THE    TIMES. 

which  they  had  been  bound,  have  indulged  them- 
selves in  such  freedom  of  speculation,  that  fancy 
seems  almost  to  have  usurped  the  place  of  calm  rea- 
son and  sober  judgment.  This  will  not  last.  Even 
now  the  disease  is  working  its  own  cure.  She  has 
the  Bible,  and  that  will  gradually  remove  her  errors, 
and  teach  her  the  truth.  The  German  theologians 
commenced  their  inquiries  at  a  time  when  infidelity 
was  at  work  over  the  whole  European  continent — 
infidelity  which  had,  naturally  enough,  taken  the 
place  of  superstition.  As  1  said  before,  they  have  the 
Bible,  and  if  they  seek,  they  will  find.  Let  us  never 
be  afraid  of  free  inquiry  when  the  Bible  is  its  subject 
and  its  guide. 

I  believe  that  the  minds  of  many  men  are  stirred 
upon  the  subject  of  religion  as  they  have  never  been 
before ;  that  the  religious  principle  is  taking  firmer  root 
in  men's  hearts  than  it  has  ever  done  before.  The 
consequence  is,  that  there  is  a  general  and  decided 
movement  in  the  Christian  world.  There  are  those, 
on  the  one  hand,  who  are  in  favor  of  drawing  tighter 
and  closer  the  fetters  and  subjects  of  ecclesiastical 
rule  and  order;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are 
those  who  earnestly  desire  to  see  a  perfect  exhibition 
of  religious  liberty  and  equality,  in  the  broadest  sense 
of  those  terms.  No  one  can  doubt  this,  who  will 
attentively  watch  the  signs  of  the  times — the  contro- 
versies and  the  struggles  which  are  going  on  amid 
every  sect  in  Christendom.  I  will  allude,  by  way  of 
illustration,  to  late  movements  among  several  ortho- 
dox religious  bodies.  See  how  the  Episcopal  church 
is  convulsed  to  its  very  centre ;  how  the  Presbyterian 
church  has  been  rent  asunder;  and  how  among  the 
2t 


SIGNS   OF   THE    TIMES. 

Methodists,  and  Baptists,  and  others,  the  same  prin- 
ciples are  at  work.  Look  at  the  late  movements  in 
the  American  Tract  Society.  Its  publishing  commit- 
tee have  been  publicly  censured  for  altering  the  works 
of  President  Edwards  to  suit  the  altered  taste  of  the 
times.  The  rigors  of  Calvinism  must  be  softened,  or 
it  will  not  now  be  received.  Those  who  are  curious 
upon  this  subject  will  perhaps  be  interested  in  com- 
paring some  of  the  works  of  Edwards,  as  recently 
published  by  the  Tract  Society,  with  the  same  works 
as  they  originally  came  from  his  hands. 

On  the  other  hand,  look  at  the  spirit  of  rigid  ortho- 
doxy as  it  has  recently  been  exhibited  at  the  annual 
meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  During  the  debate  concerning  the  validity 
of  Roman  Catholic  baptism,  a  prominent  member  of 
that  body  asserted,  that  there  was  not  truth  enough  in 
the  church  of  Rome  to  save  a  sinner.  Did  he  forget 
the  name  of  Fenelon?  Did  he  never  hear  of  the 
great  and  good  Quesnel?  Has  the  memory  of  Pas- 
cal ceased  from  a  world  which  he  enlightened  and 
sanctified  by  his  learning  and  piety?  Has  history 
never  informed  him  of  Massillon,  who  in  the  polluted 
atmosphere  of  the  court  of  Louis  XIV.  kept  his  lamp 
trimmed,  and  was  a  bright  and  shining  light  ? — to 
whom  the  monarch  himself  confessed,  "  Father,  when 
I  hear  other  preachers,  I  go  away  much  pleased  with 
them ;  but  whenever  I  hear  you,  I  go  away  much  dis- 
pleased with  myself."  Has  he  never  seen  any  private 
Christians  belonging  to  that  communion,  who  feared 
God  and  worked  righteousness, — of  whom  the  Scrip- 
tures declare,  that,  in  every  nation,  they  who  do  these 
things  shall  find  acceptance  ?  It  would  be  amusing, 


SIGNS    OF   THE    TIMES.  243 

were  it  not  so  lamentable,  to  see  infallibility  thus 
arrayed  against  infallibility.* 

While  then,  it  may  be  true  that  the  majority  of 
men  are  growing  more  thoughtless  and  irreligious,  it 
appears  to  me  that  many  of  those  who  do  think  are 
thinking  to  some  purpose, — are  learning  to  discrimi- 
nate between  essentials  and  non-essentials.  Thus  are 
they  aiding  to  divest  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
those  human  additions — "  terrene  concretions,"  as 
an  old  writer  quaintly  calls  them — which  have  hin- 
dered its  spread  in  the  world.  Thus  are  they  endea- 
voring to  hold  it  up  in  its  wondrous  beauty  and 
simplicity,  before  the  eyes  of  an  admiring  multitude ; 
and  surely  they  will  have  their  reward. 

Ah,  my  dear  Sir,  it  is  all  in  vain  now  to  claim  for 
certain  systems,  the  inventions  of  men,  and  sustained 
by  human  power,  the  same  authority  they  had  when 
called  forth  by  a  different  state  of  things,  in  a  different 
age  of  the  world.  The  world,  as  it  grows  old,  grows 
wise ;  at  least,  it  thinks  so ;  and  will  not  consent  to  be 
under  tutors  and  governors  as  in  its  childhood.  Igno- 
rance and  superstition  have  fled  before  knowledge,  and 
a  servile  spirit  has  given  place  to  a  spirit  of  liberty. 
This  state  of  things  has  its  dangers,  I  confess;  but 

*  President  Quincy,  in  his  "  Speech  on  the  Minority  Report  of  Mr.  Ban- 
croft," makes  an  amusing  remark,  which  will  apply  very  well  here.  "  When 
the  Reformation  came,"  says  he,  "  and  sects  multiplied,  the  leaders  of  every 
sect  realized  the  advantage  the  Romish  Church  possessed  in  St.  Peter's 
keys ;  and,  as  they  could  not  divest  that  church  of  those  keys,  they  set  them- 
selves to  work,  and  manufactured  little  pass-keys,  as  like  to  St.  Peter's  as 
possible,  and  taught  their  converts  to  believe  that  they  were  quite  as  good, 
if  not  a  little  better,  than  the  great  keys  of  St.  Peter ;  being  made  of  the 
same  material,  a  little  lighter,  not  quite  so  burdensome,  and  altogether  as 
sure. 

"  Now,  I  cannot  find,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  that  the  sect  called  Unitarian, 
ever  made  to  itself  a  pass-key,"  &c. 


244  SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES. 

still  the  fact  remains  that  such  a  state  exists,  and  men 
must  prepare  themselves  for  its  development. 

I  honestly  believe  that,  in  proportion  as  men  are 
released  from  the  tyranny  of  the  dogmas  imposed  by 
human  creeds,  will  pure  and  undefiled  religion  extend 
and  flourish.  Yet  1  do  not  at  all  wonder  that  secta- 
rians, honest  and  pious  men,  who  hold,  as  I  once  did, 
the  necessity  of  believing  certain  tenets  not  explicitly 
taught  in  the  word  of  God,  should  be  alarmed  at 
what  seems  to  them  the  spread  of  infidelity.  Once  it 
seemed  so  to  me ;  but  over  what  I  formerly  mourned, 
I  now  rejoice.  God  be  praised,  that  men  are  learning 
to  take  the  Bible  to  their  free  hearts — to  clasp  it  with 
honest  independence,  and  hold  it  firmly  there.  God 
be  praised,  that  they  will  allow  no  human  authority 
to  come  between  their  Bibles  and  their  hearts — their 
God  and  themselves.  The  moment  men  do  this, 
Christianity  must  triumph.  There  is  a  wonderful 
adaptedness  of  the  simple  truths  of  religion  to  man's 
miseries  and  necessities.  But,  so  long  as  these  simple 
truths  are  obscured  by  the  traditions  of  men,  they 
must,  to  a  great  degree,  lose  their  power;  and  the 
peaceful  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  will  be,  as  it  has  too 
often  been,  the  apple  of  discord  among  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  men, — the  watch-word  of  angry  conten- 
tion and  party  strife. 

I  will  conclude  this  letter  with  an  anecdote  of  the 
celebrated  Col.  Lehmanowsky.  When  he  first  enlisted 
in  the  French  army,  as  Napoleon  was  one  day  review- 
ing his  troops,  something  occurred,  perhaps  the  pass- 
ing of  a  religious  procession,  which  caused  all  the 
Catholics  to  kneel,  and  bow  themselves  to  the  ground. 
Lehmanowsky  stood  erect.  "  Why  do  you  not 
kneel?"  inquired  Napoleon.  "Sire,"  replied  the  sol- 


SIGNS    OF   THE    TIMES.  245 

dier,  "I  cannot;  I  am  a  Protestant."  "Fall  back 
then,"  said  the  Emperor  mildly,  and  the  soldier  did  so. 
"  I  will  watch  that  man,"  said  Lehmanowsky  to  him- 
self; "he  respects  my  conscience."  My  dear  Sir,  let 
us  all  respect  each  other's  consciences. 
21* 


LETTER    XXX, 


PAINFUL  THEMES. 

MY  DEAR  SIR: 

IT  gives  me  a  great  deal  of  pain  when  you  say, 
"  Henceforth  our  religious  sympathies  are  to  be  uncon- 
genial." There  is,  you  assert,  "  no  middle  ground, 
no  'Platform'  on  which  we  can  meet.  If  Christ  be 
God,"  you  observe,  "and  you  refuse  to  worship  him 
as  God,  and  to  receive  him  as  such,  you  reject  the 
only  way  of  salvation  which  the  Gospel  provides." 
Enough  has  been  said  upon  this  subject  in  former 
letters,  to  render  it  unnecessary  to  enlarge  upon  it 
here ;  but  I  will  merely  remark,  that  if  there  is  to  be 
no  religious  sympathy  between  us,  the  fault  is  yours, 
not  mine.  Knowing  perfectly  well  your  sentiments 
and  my  own,  I  feel  that  there  are  many  chords  that 
can  vibrate  in  unison,  if  we  will  only  allow  them  to 
give  forth  their  natural  sounds.  Time  alone  will 
show  whether  I  have  so  far  lost  my  religious  feelings 
as  would  be  indicated  by  the  result  you  anticipate.  It 
is  mournful  to  have  to  acknowledge  that  you  are  not 
the  only  dear  friend  who  feels  in  this  way  Another 
writes,  "  I  feel  very  sad  whenever  I  think  of  the  past. 
For  the  future  our  intercourse  cannot  be  quite  the 
same.  I  mid  myself  considering  how  your  change 
will  afiect  you  about  everything  that  comes  up  before 


PAINFUL    THEMES. 

me.  I  believe  it  to  be  so  great  a  change,  that  it  must 
seriously  alter  your  views  of  things  around  and  above 
you.  But  I  cannot  cease  to  love  you,  and  to  desire 
your  love  in  return."  At  another  time  she  writes:  "I 
have  had  some  bitter  moments  since  I  received  your 
letter.  I  have  very  few  friends  of  my  younger  days 
left.  Death  and  life's  changes  have  deprived  me  of 
many,  and  now  a  bitter  separation  must  take  place  be- 
tween spirits  that  have  long  depended  upon  each  other 
for  intellectual  improvement  and  social  happiness." 

How  very  sad  this  is  !  In  view  of  this  painful  state 
of  things,  when  I  have  heard  expressions  of  heartfelt 
sympathy  so  freely  poured  forth  for  my  parents  and 
friends,  I  have  been  inclined  to  ask,  is  there  no  sympa- 
thy for  me?  Am  I  not  a  sufferer  too?  Is  there  no 
one  who  can  realize  what  I  have  lost — what  I  have 
"sacrificed  to  what  I  deem  the  cause  of  Truth  ?  In  the 
words  of  a  Unitarian  writer,  I  will  ask,  if  "  the  stand- 
ing forth,  for  conscience'  sake,  as  a  mark  of  general 
obloquy,  the  being  shunned  and  vilified,  the  bearing  of 
hard  names  and  cruel  insinuations,  the  loss  of  reputa- 
tion among  the  great  body  of  the  people,  and  the 
wounds  of  private  friendship  " — to  me  far  more  pain- 
ful than  all  the  rest — are  nothing?  Are  all  these 
things  nothing •?  Ah,  there  are  times,  my  dear  Sir, 
when,  in  the  agony  of  my  feelings,  I  have  been 
inclined  to  exclaim,  in  the  touching  language  of  inspi- 
ration, "  All  ye  that  pass  by,  come  and  see  if  there  is 
any  sorrow  like  unto  my  sorrow?" 

Yet  all  these  things  will  not,  cannot,  move  me,  nor 
cause  me  to  deny  what  I  believe  to  be  the  truth  as  it  is 
in  Jesus.  I  am  serious  and  earnest  in  this  matter,  and 
well  may  I  be  so,  for  it  is  a  serious  business.  I  did 
not  take  this  step  without  counting  the  cost.  I  well 


248  JOSEPH   BLANCO    WHITE. 

knew  it  would  be  unpopular.  I  had  some  anticipa- 
tion of  the  contumely  and  reproach  I  should  bring 
upon  myself  for  presuming  to  differ  from  the  majority; 
I  knew  that  my  motives  would  be  misunderstood  and 
misrepresented  ;  of  all  this  I  seriously  thought;  for  all 
this  I  was  in  a  measure  prepared ;  but  I  must,  in  can- 
dor, say,  that  I  did  not  dream  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  spirit  of  orthodoxy  would  carry  some  of  its  vota- 
ries. Some  of  the  things  which  I  have  suffered  were 
naturally  to  be  expected ;  they  will  always  be  the  lot 
of  every  one  who  takes  any  uncommon  step,  while  the 
majority  of  persons  in  every  community  spend  their 
time,  as  did  the  Athenians  of  ojd,  "  in  nothing  else, 
but  either  to  tell,  or  to  hear  some  new  thing." 

As  I  have  said  in  another  letter,  before  I  began  to 
investigate  the  main  point  which  has  now  separated 
me  from  nearly  all  my  relatives  and  friends,  my  views 
upon  other  points  had  become  essentially  modified.  I 
can  say  of  myself  as  some  one  has  said  of  Joseph 
Blanco  White,  that  his  mind,  which  had  been  bound 
by  the  fetters  of  Jesuitism,  "rushed  to  a  compromise; 
and  compromises,"  remarks  the  author,  "  only  last  for 
a  time."  He  first  took  refuge  in  the  established 
Church  of  England,  but  his  active  mind  cast  off  one 
fetter  after  another,  till  finally  he  stood  boldly  forth  in 
the  ranks  of  liberal-  Christianity,  and  avowed  himself 
a  Unitarian.  I  will  remark,  however,  that,  though 
he  died  heartily  trusting  in  God,  I  do  not  cite  his  case 
as  a  proof  of  the  cheering  influence  of  Unitarian  Chris- 
tianity. 

Well,  as  I  said  before,  the  "compromise"  which  I 
had  made  did  not  last  long.  After  a  while  I  came  to 
the  great  inquiry  whether  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  taught  in  the  Bible.  After  a  diligent  search  I 


GENERAL    REMARKS.  249 

found,  that,  to  my  apprehension,  it  was  not  there 
taught.  The  question  I  then  asked  myself  was  this, 
What  is  my  duty  ?•  In  view  of  all  the  circumstances, 
some  of  them  very  peculiar,  of  my  case,  what  does 
truth,  what  does  my  own  conscience,  what  does  God 
require  of  me  ?-  In  this  solemn  attitude,  feeling 
intensely  my  responsibilities  to  God  and  to  my  fellow- 
men,  I  have  made  my  decision.  If  I  am  mistaken, 
nay  mistake  has  been,  and  is,  an  honest  one.  With 
my  views  of  what  constitutes  an  honest  character,  I 
could  not  have  acted  differently.  In  the  words  of  the 
Rev.  Theophilus  Lindsey,  I  must  say,  "  I  was  obliged 
to  pursue  this  course,  whatever  I  suffered  by  it,  unless 
I  would  lose  all  inward  peace,  and  hope  of  God's  favor 
and  acceptance  in  the  end." 

Thanks  be  to  God,  I  am  enjoying  a  new  life. 
While  my  friends  are  mourning  over  me,  I  am  rejoic- 
ing with  a  calm  and  holy  joy  which  has  spread  itself 
to  the  inmost  recesses  of  my  soul.  We  are  to  be  made 
perfect  through  suffering.  It  seems  to  me  a  mistaken 
idea  that  the  Christian  must  wait  till  he  dies  before  he 
can  taste  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  Our  heaven 
may  begin  below.  The  soul  may  be  in  heaven  while 
it  tabernacles  in  the  flesh.  In  our  ideas  of  what  hea- 
ven is,  there  is  too  much  of  the  material,  and  too  little 
of  the  spiritual.  Heaven,  I  take  it,  does  not  mean  any 
particular  spot  in  God's  universe,  but  that  slate  of  the 
soul  which  fits  it  for  the  enjoyment  of  God.  When  the 
soul,  as  it  often  does,  rises  above  this  world,  is  dead  to 
its  follies,  its  temptations,  its  sins,  and  its  sorrows, 
then  it  is  in  heaven.  And  yet,  while  it  is  joined  to  the 
flesh,  it  must  be  subject  to  the  variations  arising  from 
its  situation,  it  can  only  be  made  perfect,  as  the  soul 
of  our  Master  was,  through  suffering.  Then,  while 


250  GENERAL    REMARKS. 

we  endeavor  to  avoid  the  cause  of  suffering — that  sin 
which  brings  death — let  us  welcome  every  trial  sent 
by  our  heavenly  Father  as  a  bitter,  yet  salutary  medi- 
cine ;  let  us  meekly  endure,  and  be  thankful  for,  every 
sorrow  and  every  pang.  Then  shall  these  painful 
separations  be  our  "  light  afflictions,"  which  will 
"work  out  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eternal 
weight  of  glory.'' 

I  do  not  believe,  my  dear  Sir,  that  my  friends  would 
feel  as  they  do  if  they  would  only  be  willing  to  read, 
or  to  hear,  with  candid  attention,  what  Unitarians 
have  to  say  in  their  own  defence.  Among  the  great 
mass  of  the  Orthodox,  there  is  a  great  amount  of  igno- 
rance and  prejudice  upon  this  subject.  I  have  every 
reason  to  believe  that  those  of  my  friends  who  have 
spoken  most  confidently  against  Unitarians,  are  as 
ignorant  of  them,  and  of  their  principles,  as  expressed 
in  their  writings,  as  I  once  was  myself.  I  find,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  those  who  know  them  best,  who  have 
been  most  associated  with  them — how  much  soever 
they  may  differ  from  them  in  doctrine — are  most 
sparing  of  invective  and  denunciation. 

It  seems  strange  to  me  that  good  people  should  be 
willing  to  condemn  their  brethren  without  even  giving 
them  a  hearing.  There  is  a  strange  reluctance  among 
the  Orthodox  to  read  the  writings  of  Unitarian  authors, 
and  yet  no  man  has  a  right  to  judge  another  merely 
upon  hearsay.  "  We  should  imagine,"  says  Burnap, 
"  that  all  fair-minded  men,  who  have  often  heard  us 
censured,  would  gladly  embrace  the  opportunity  of 
hearing  our  defence,  that  by  knowing  the  arguments 
upon  both  sides,  they  might  have  the  means  of  making 
up  their  own  judgments.  Any  unwillingness  to  do 
this,  must  arise  either  from  a  distrust  of  what  they 


UNWILLINGNESS    TO    READ.  251 

have  already  embraced  as  truth,  or  from  the  claim  of 
infallibility.  If  a  man  feels  a  fear  lest  his  opinions 
may  be  shaken,  what  is  this  but  a  confession  that  he 
already  expects  they  are  unsound  ?  He  is  already  a 
doubter.  Does  he  feel  confident  of  his  infallibility? 
Who  can  claim  infallibility  in  this  imperfect  state? 
Who  has  so  much  light  on  any  subject,  that  he  can 
receive  no  more?  'Prove  all  things,'  says  the  Apos- 
tle, '  Hold  fast  that  which  is  good.'" 

This  unwillingness  to  read  often  arises  from  the 
fear  of  having  one's  peace  of  mind  disturbed  by  the 
consideration  of  arguments  which  it  may  be  difficult 
to  overthrow.  But  is  not  this  preferring  peace  before 
sound  doctrine?  Some  persons  seem  to  think  that 
peace  is  to  be  preserved  at  the  expense  of  everything 
else.  But  this  was  not  the  idea  of  an  inspired  Apostle. 
"First  pure,"  says  he,  "then  peaceable."  "The 
peace  of  mankind,"  said  Mr.  Hans  Stanley,  when  he 
was  opposing  the  petition  of  the  English  clergymen 
for  relief  in  the  article  of  subscription — "  the  peace  of 
mankind  is  a  fortieth  article  of  my  religion,  which  I 
hold  to  be  much  more  important  than  any  of  the 
thirty-nine."  There  are  not  a  few  in  the  present  day 
who  appear  to  be  decidedly  of  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Hans 
Stanley. 

"  I  cannot  but  think,"  said  the  excellent  Duke  of 
Grafton,  "  that  a  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and 
the  invocation  of  him  as  God,  is  displeasing  to  the 
Almighty,  as  breaking  his  first  great  and  unrepealed 
command  ;  and  that  every  man  who  wilfully  neglects 
to  inquire  has  much  to  answer  for."  "The  lovers  of 
truth, v  said  Sir  George  Saville,  "  will  love  all  sincere 
inquirers  after  it,  though  they  may  differ  from  them  in 
various  religious  sentiments.  For  it  is  to  impartial 


UNWILLINGNESS    TO    READ. 

and  free  inquiry  only  that  error  owes  its  ruin  and  truth 
its  success."  And  in  another  place  he  says,  "  When  I 
see  a  rivulet  flow  to  the  top  of  a  high  rock,  and  requir- 
ing a  strong  engine  to  force  it  back  again,  then  shall  I 
think  that  freedom  of  inquiry  will  be  prejudicial  to 
truth." 

Why  then,  I  again  earnestly  inquire,  is  there  this 
universal  determination,  among  the  Orthodox,  not  to 
read  Unitarian  books,  and  not  to  allow  them  to  be 
read,  so  far  as  their  influence  can  prevail  to  accomplish 
the  object?  What  does  it  mean?  Are  the  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  Unitarian,  stronger  than  those  in  favor 
of  the  Trinitarian  scheme  ?  If  they  are,  they  deserve 
to  be  considered,  surely.  And  if  they  are  not,  they 
ought  not  to  be  feared.  When  I  hear  it  confidently 
asserted  that  Unitarians  do  not  believe  in  regeneration, 
nor  in  the  atonement,  nor  in  a  Saviour,  nor  in  a  Holy 
Spirit,  I  have  a  right  to  demand  of  those  who  make 
such  assertions,  that  they  will  point  me  to  the  Unita- 
rian works  where  these  things  are  denied.  And  I 
have  also  a  right  to  demand  that  they  will  give  their 
attention  when  I  point  them  to  Unitarian  works  where 
a  belief  in  those  things  is  expressly  asserted  and 
proved. 

And  now,  my  dear  Sir,  I  have  but  little  more  to  say. 
I  have  intended  to  do  what  is  right ;  may  God  and  my 
fellow-men  forgive  me  if  I  have  done  what  is  wrong. 
I  am  firm  and  happy  in  my  present  opinions,  but  I 
shall  always  be  ready  to  exchange  them  for  any 
which  may  be  more  according  to  the  Scriptures  of 
truth.  At  this  most  solemn  crisis  of  my  life,  human 
praise  or  censure  affects  me  not.  Let  me  explain  my- 
self. They  are  nothing,  I  mean,  in  comparison  with 
the  approbation  or  disapprobation  of  God  and  my  own 


AN   EXTRACT.  253 

conscience.  At  the  same  time,  I  should  be  more  or  less 
than  human,  did  I  not  most  keenly  feel  the  severe  and 
heart-affecting  trials  through  which  I  am  passing.  I 
cannot  better  conclude  than  in  the  words  of  the  late 
Rev.  John  Sherman,  in  an  address  to  the  youth  of  his 
congregation  at  Mansfield,  Conn.,  from  which  he  was 
dismissed  in  consequence  of  holding  Unitarian  opin- 
ions. "The  subject,"  he  says,  alluding  to  the  same 
subject  which  has  been  engaging  our  attention — "the 
subject  is  of  primary  importance,  and  demands  your  seri- 
ous and  attentive  consideration.  Let  me  exhort  you  to 
search  the  Scriptures  diligently,  and  s6e  whether  they 
teach  you  that  three  divine  persons,  three  distinct  moral 
agents,  make,  when  added  together,  only  one  individ- 
ual being.  Should  the  result  of  your  investigation 
comport  with  the  doctrine  which  I  have  taught  you 
from  the  Scriptures,  I  wish  you  may  be  duly  impressed 
with  the  importance  of  openly  avowing  it,  and  appear- 
ing as  its  advocates;  that  you  will  never  be  ashamed 
of  the  interesting  truth,  but  boldly  and  faithfully  stand 
in  its  defence,  though  the  multitude  should  be  against 
you.  Let  your  zeal,  however,  be  well  tempered  with 
Christian  charity.  Be  moderate  and  candid,  liberal 
and  catholic,  in  your  treatment  of  those  who  rnay 
differ.  Above  all,  always  remember  that  the  best 
orthodoxy  is  a  faithful  observance  of  the  sacred  pre- 
cepts of  that  One  God  whom  you  profess  and  acknowl- 
edge." 

22 


255 


APPENDIX, 


A. 


IN  regard  to  the  different  senses  in  which  the  term  God  may  be 
used,  I  have  recently  met  with  testimony,  which,  to  some  persons, 
may  be  rather  new  and  startling.  I  will  introduce  this  testimony  by 
a  short  extract  from  a  published  sermon  recently  preacheo*  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Oilman  in  the  Unitarian  church  of  Charleston,  S.  C.  It 
is  entitled  "  Unitarian  Christianity  no  Novel  Device."  "  Nearly  a 
hundred  years  ago,"  says  he,  "  the  Pastor  of  a  Baptist  Church  in 
this  city,  with  his  congregation,  adopted  Arian  sentiments,  which  he 
publicly  defended  in  his  discourses,  and  explained  in  a  printed  cate- 
chism still  extant,  and  of  which  a  copy  may  be  seen  in  the  library 
of  your  speaker."  In  an  Appendix,  he  says :  "  The  Baptist  Cate- 
chism, referred  to  in  this  page,  is  a  curious  document,  dated  Charles- 
ton, and  is  dedicated  to  Mrs.  Amarantha  Farr,  Mrs.  Francis  Elliott, 
Mrs.  Elizabeth  Elliott,  and  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Williamson,  all  descend- 
ants, by  blood  or  marriage,  of  Mr.  William  Elliott.  The  following 
extracts  will  sufficiently  illustrate  the  assertion  made  in  the  dis- 
course : 

"  '  Qu.  What  are  we  then  to  believe  of  Christ  Jesus?  It  is  com 
monly  said  we  allow  him  to  be  no  more  than  a  mere  man,  such  as  our 
selves. 

Ans.  But  this  is  untrue.  For  we  confess  Jesus  Christ  was  in 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  with  God  and  was  God.  And  after  his 
Resurrection,  he  was  made  and  appointed  Lord  and  God  over  all, 
the  Father  only  excepted,  who  put  all  things  under  him. 

Qu.      Whence  came  this  Calumny  ? 

Ans.  Why  hence  ;  we  say,  though  Jesus  Christ  was  God  above 
all  other  Beings  but  the  Father,  he  was  not  the  Most  High  God  : 
but  the  Father  only  was  greater  than  Christ,  and  his  God  and  Head. 


256  APPENDIX. 

Qu.  You  seem  to  make  two  Gods,  but  the  Scripture  declares  there 
are  no  more  Gods  than  one  ? 

Ans.  The  Scripture  uses  the  word  God  in  two  different  signifi- 
cations, first,  to  denote  the  Supreme  or  Most  High,  who  is  so  called 
by  Way  of  Eminence.  And  in  this  sense  the  Scriptures  use  the 
Word,  when  they  assert  there  is  but  one  God:  There  being  but  one 
supreme  God,  and  no  more.  But  at  other  Times,  the  Word  God 
denotes  any  Person  of  Power  and  Authority  ;  and  so  Angels,  Mag- 
istrates, and  Prophets,  whom  God  invests  with  Authority  and  Power 
by  his  Commission,  are  called  Gods,  and  in  this  sense,  there  are 
Lords  many  and  Gods  many. 

Qu.      What  worship  is  due  to  Christ  ? 

Ans.  We  are  to  give  Glory  to  God,  and  offer  our  Prayers  to 
God,  thro'  him. 

Qu.  May  we  not  give  Glory  and  Praise,  and  offer  up  prayers  to 
him  ? 

Am.  There  are  some  instances  of  giving  Glory  to  Christ,  and 
some  short  ejaculatory  Prayers  offered  to  him ;  and  both  may  be 
done,  provided  we  remember  we  give  him  Glory  out  of  Reverence 
to  God's  Command,  and  pray  to  him  as  God's  Vicegerent,  and  not 
as  the  supreme  God  himself;  but  the  praising  and  praying  to  God 
thro1  him,  is  both  the  most  common  and  exact  form  of  Worship,  and 
least  liable  to  Mistakes. 

Qu.      What  other  Worship  is  due  to  Him  ? 

Ans.  We  ought  to  be  baptized  in  his  Name,  and  to  commemo- 
rate his  Sufferings  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Qu.      Can  we  he  guilty  of  Idolatry  in  worshipping  Jesus  Christ? 

Ans.  Yes,  the  Majority  of  Christians  are  guilty  of  it,  by  giving 
him  the  Worship  proper  to  the  Father  alone :  They  exceed  the 
Limit  of  God's  Command  in  this  particular,  whereby  Jesus  Christ, 
who  came  to  abolish  Idolatry,  is  made  the  greatest  Idol  in  the 
World.' " 


APPENDIX.  257 

B. 

•!MM(. 

This  passage,  "  he  called  them  Gods,  to  whom  the  word  of  God 
came,"  appears  to  me  to  throw  great  light  upon  that  much  contested 
passage  which  forms  the  proem  to  St.  John's  Gospel.  St.  John 
peems  to  have  been  writing  against  those  who  believed  as  did  Philo, 
the  Jewish  Plato,  and  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  that  the  Logos  was  an 
emanation  from  the  Deity,  and  a  different  person  from  God  himself. 
He  tells  them  that  the  Word  or  Wisdom,  or  Reason  of  God,  as  it  is 
called  by  most  of  the  Greek  Fathers, — that  this  Word,  or  Wisdom, 
or  Reason  which  created  all  things,  and  in  which  was  Life,  and 
which  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  or  was  "  made  flesh" — was,  as  the 
a^cute  philosopher  Thomas  Brown  expresses  it,  "  not  anything  dif- 
ferent from  God  himself."  Now  this  "  Word"  came  to  Christ,  in 
an  especial  manner,  through  him  God  manifested  himself  to  the 
world  as  he  never  had  done  before.  But  if  those  were  called  Gods 
to  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  then,  in  this  sense,  Christ  can  be 
called  a  God.  Le  Clerc,  who  was  a  Trinitarian,  does  not  apply  the 
first  verse  of  John's  Gospel  to  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  but 
says,  "  The  meaning  of  the  Evangelist  is,  that  philosophers  spoke 
agreeably  to  truth  when  they  said,  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
world,  there  was  Reason,  or  Divine  Intelligence,  which  had  created 
all  things." 

Some  Trinitarians  think  that  the  phrase  "  the  Word"  was  used 
by  John  to  denote  the  Messiah,  because  it  was  thus  used  in  the 
Chaldee  paraphrases  or  Targums,  but  other  learned  Trinitarians 
think  there  is  no  foundation  for  such  a  supposition.  Michaelis  says, 
"  Though  they  (the  Rabbins)  frequently  used  the  expression  '  the 
word  of  God,'  especially  in  their  Targums  or  paraphrases,  they  did 
not  mean  to  express  a  separate  and  distinct  being  from  Jehovah  him- 
self, or,  as  we  should  say,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity."  In- 
trod.  to  the  New  Test.  vol.  iii.,  pp.  280,  281.  Dr.  Burton  says, 
"  It  has  been  proved  satisfactorily  that  Memra,  (or,  the  Word,)  is 
never  used  in  the  Targums  for  a  distinct  and  separate  person  ;  it  is, 
in  fact,  only  another  form  for  the  pronoun  himself."  Theol.  Works, 
vol.  iii.  Bampt.  Lect.  pp.  221,  222.  It  appears  clear  to  me  that 
John  was  teaching  only  that  the  Logos,  which  was  manifested  to  the 
world,  through  Christ,  was  God  himself.  And  John  keeps  up  this 
idea  through  the  passage.  "  All  things  were  made  by  it,"  &c.,  for 
Dr.  Campbell  says,  "  Every  version  which  preceded  it,  (that  is,  the 
22* 


common  translation,)  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  uni- 
formly employed  the  neuter  pronoun  it.  Mitford.  likewise  a  Trini- 
tarian, says,  "  The  original  (nor  is  the  observation  new)  would 
equally  bear  the  version  '  all  things  were  made  through  it,'  "  &c. 
We  learn  that  "  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made," 
"  he  spake  and  it  was  done." 


C. 

The  following  are  the  remarks  of  Trinitarian  writers  concerning 
the  passage,  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  &c.,"  as  it  occurs  in  the  Psalms, 
and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  They  are  taken  from  a  remark- 
able-volume entitled,  "  The  Concessions  of  Trinitarians,"  from  which 
volume  I  have  elsewhere  quoted  largely.  Of  the  verse,  as  it  occurs 
in  the  45th  Psalm,  the  following  interpretations  are  given  : 

"  Thy  throne  may  God  establish  forever." — Dr.  Geddes. 

"  Thy  throne,  O  divine  Prince  !  is  forever  and  ever." — Mudge. 

"  Thy  throne,  O  Solomon !  hy  the  blessing  of  God,  is  to  last  for 
many  generations." — Dr.  Wells. 

Calmet  says,  the  Hebrew  word,  here  translated  God,  "  designates 
the  rank  of  a  judge  and  sovereign  ;  as  if  the  Psalmist  in  connecting 
it  with  that  of  the  throne  of  the  Messiah,  meant  to  say,  that  Jesus 
should  be  appointed  by  his  Father  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  the 
dead,  possess  the  throne  of  David,  his  ancestor,  and  reign  over  the 

true  Israel during  all  eternity."  Limborch  says,  the  title 

God,  "is  attributed  to  Solomon,  by  reason  of  his  regal  dignity, 
which  was  supreme  in  Israel,  and  in  the  same  sense  as  kings  and 
magistrates  are  called  gods  and  children  of  the  Most  High.  Ps. 
Ixxxii.  6.  But  in  a  more  sublime  sense  it  is  spoken  of  Christ,  the 
antitype  of  Solomon,  on  account  of  his  kingly  dignity,  by  which  he 
had  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  all  things  being  subject  unto 
him,  except  He  alone  who  put  all  things  under  him." 

The  remarks  which  follow  are  upon  the  same  text  as  it  occurs  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Wiclif  renders  it.  "  God  thy  throne  is 
into  the  world  of  world.''  Tyndal,  "  God  thy  seat  shall  be  forever 
and  ever."  Gncsbarh,  "  God  (is)  thy  throne  forever  and  ever." 
A  writer  in  the  Uiblical  Repository  for  Jan.  1S39,  says,  '•  Here  the 


APPENDIX.  259 

Son  is  addressed  by  the  title  God;  but  the  context  shows  it  is  an 
official  title,  which  designates  him  as  a  king  ;  he  has  a  kingdom,  a 
throne,  a  sceptre  ;  and  in  verse  9,  he  is  compared  with  other  kings, 
who  are  called  his  fellows  ;  but  God  can  have  no  fellows.  As  the 
Son,  therefore,  he  is  classed  with  the  kings  of  the  earth;  and  his 
^••^eriority  over  them  consists  in  this,  that  he  is  anointed  with  the 
oil  of  gladness  above  them,  inasmuch  as  their  thrones  are  temporary, 
but  his  shall  be  everlasting."  See  Concessions  of  Trinitarians,  pp. 
166,  167,  529,  530. 


.D. 

I  copy  from  the  Concessions  of  Trinitarians,  the  following  remarks 
upon  this  passage,  abridged  from  ERASMUS.  "  This  passage  may  be 
pointed  and  rendered  in  three  different  ways :  First,  '  Of  whom, 
according  to  the  flesh,  is  Christ,  who  is  over  all.  God  be  blessed 
forever.'  Second,  '  Of  whom,  according  to  the  flesh,  is  Christ,  who, 
being  God  over  all,  is  blessed  forever.'  And,  third,  which  is  per- 
fectly suitable  to  the  purport  of  the  discourse,  '  Of  whom  is  Christ 
according  to  the  flesh,'  finishing  the  sentence  here,  and  subjoining 
what  follows — '  God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  forever,' — as  an 
ascription  of  praise  for  our  having  received  the  law,  the  covenant, 
and  the  prophecies,  and  lastly,  Christ  sent  in  human  nature  ;  privi- 
leges which  God,  by  his  unspeakable  counsels,  had  bestowed  for 
the  redemption  of  mankind.  And  here,  if  the  word  God  be  under- 
stood to  mean  the  whole  Sacred  Trinity,  (as  is  frequently  done  in 
Scripture,  where,  for  example,  we  are  commanded  to  worship  God, 
and  to  serve  him  only,)  then  will  Christ  not  be  excluded  ;  but,  if  it 
be  explained  to  denote  the  person  of  the  Father,  (which  is  a  com- 
mon signification  of  the  term  God,  as  used  by  St.  Paul,  when  Christ 
or  the  Spirit  is  mentioned  in  conjunction,)  then,  though  clear  as 
noon-day  that,  in  other  places,  Christ,  as  well  as  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  called  truly  God,  this  passage  will  not  be  valid  to 
confute  the  Arians  ;  there  being  nothing  whatever  to  prevent  its 
application  to  the  Father.  Those,  therefore,  who  contend  that  in 
this  text  Christ  is  clearly  termed  God,  either  place  little  confidence 
in  other  passages  of  Scripture, — deny  all  understanding  to  the 


ZOO  APPENDIX. 

Arians, — or  pay  scarcely  any  attention  to  the  style  of  the  Apostle. 
A  similar  passage  occurs  in  2  Cor.  xi.  31  :  '  The  God  and  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  blessed  forever ;'  the  latter  clause 
being  undeniably  restricted  to  the  Father.  If,  however,  the  church 
teaches  that  Rom.  ix.  5,  must  be  interpreted  of  the  deity  of  the  Son, 
the  church  must  be  obeyed  ;  though  this  is  not  sufficient  to  convince 
heretics,  or  those  who  will  listen  only  to  the  words  of  Sacred  Writ ; 
but,  if  she  were  to  say,  that  that  passage  cannot  be  otherwise  ex- 
plained in  conformity  with  the  Greek,  she  would  assert  what  is  con- 
futed by  the  thing  itself." 

Voter  says,  that  the  passage  we  are  considering  "  is  a  parenthesis 
and  a  doxology,  which  refers  either  to  Christ,  the  nearest  antece- 
dent, or  to  God  the  Father,  but  to  which  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
determine.  The  words  o  o>»  «t>ioy,cannot  be  construed  as  in  2  Cor. 
xi.  31 ;  for  the  verb  be  must,  in  Rom.  ix.  5,  be  supplied.  Those 
words  may,  indeed,  be  easily  connected  with  the  preceding;  but 
Paul  could  begin  a  new  proposition  with  the  same  expression,  o  »r, 
as  in  John  iii.  31  ;  viii.  47.  On  the  other  hand,  since  the  words 
6  tni  narTmv  0to?  are  elsewhere  said  only  of  God  the  Father,  is  it 
not  what  is  termed  a  petitio  principii  to  assert  that  they  are  here 
applied  to  the  Messiah?  " 

Wilson,  the  compiler  of  the  book  from  which  the  foregoing  extracts 
have  been  taken,  goes  on  to  remark  :  "  Without  taking  into  account 
the  conjectural  criticism  by  which  some  Unitarians  would  alter  the 
reading  6  <ov  into  a>r  6,  '  of  whom,  or  whose,  is  the  God  over  all,'  &c., 
in  accordance  with  a  principle  which,  ERNESTI  says,  is  '  not  to  be 
entirely  neglected,'  though  he  does  not  apply  it  to  Rom.  ix.  5 ; — 
and  without  also  placing  undue  stress  on  the  fact,  that  not  a  little 
doubt  existed  in  the  minds  of  ERASMUS,  GROTIUS,  and  others,  as  to 
the  propriety  of  retaining  the  word  God,  which  seems  to  have  been 
omitted  in  manuscripts  used  by  some  of  the  Fathers  ;  it  may  be  re- 
marked, that  the  quotations  here  made  from  many  of  the  most  acute 
critics  in  the  "  orthodox  "  body,  forbid  any  reliance  on  the  passage 
as  a  proof  that  Christ  is  Almighty  God.  For  it  is  admitted,  that  the 
punctuation  may  be  changed  ;  that  the  latter  clause  of  the  original, 
either  after  aaoxa  or  iram-ir,  may  be  rendered  as  a  doxology  to  the 
Father  ; — that,  even  according  to  those  modes  of  pointing  and  trans- 
lating which  appear  most  favorable  to  Trinitarian  theology,  Christ 
is  not  called  the  Supreme  God,  but  Lord  over  all,  in  his  human 
nature  ; — and  that  he  may  be  termed  God  over  all,  as  being  merely 


APPENDIX.  261 

the  God  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  in  the  lower  sense  of  the  word  ; 
the  Mediator,  the  Head  of  the  church,  and  the  Judge  of  the  world, 
by  the  Father's  appointment.  Similar  to  these  are  the  renderings 
and  expositions  which  have  proceeded  from  the  lips  and  pens  of 
Unitarians,  but  which  have  subjected  them  to  the  opprobrious  names 
of  mere  sciolists  and  God-deniers  !  " — Concessions  of  Trinitarians, 
pp.  424 — 427. 


E. 

"  Above  all,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that,  as  humility  and  obedi- 
ence are  here  the  subject  of  discourse,  we  ought  to  understand  what 
St.  Paul  says,  of  Christ's  humanity;  for  his  divine  nature,  being  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Father,  is  not  susceptible  of  humility  and  obe- 
dience. These  are  excellencies,  not  of  the  Creator,  but  of  created 
beings. — LE  CLERC  :  Le  Nouv.  Test. 

"  Though  he  was  in  a  divine  form. — LUTHER.  Though  he  was 
like  God,  and  ivas  his  image. — J.  D.  MICHAELIS.  Though  he  was 
the  visible,  image  of  God. — SEILER.  Though  he  had  it  in  his  power 
to  be  in  the  Infty  station  of  God. — STORE. 

"  The  form  of  God  here  signifies  majesty.  ...  I  acknowl- 
edge, indeed,  that  Paul  does  not  make  mention  of  Christ's  divine 
essence. — CALVIN. 

"  From  this  place,  indeed,  the  Fathers  used  to  prove  the  Divinity 
of  Christ :  but  the  form  of  God  is  not  God  himself. — JAS  HEER- 

BRAND. 

"  Thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  as  God. — DODDRIDGE  and  WYNNE. 
Did  not  think  it  robbery  to  be  like  God. — MACKNIGHT. 

"  Did  not  covet  to  appear  as  God. — DR.  WHITBY.  Was  not  fond, 
or  tenacious,  of  appearing  as  God;  did  not  eagerly  insist  to  be  equal 
with  God. — BTSHOP  SHERLOCK. 

*•  Was  not  tenacious  oj  this  equality  with  God,  did  not  consider  it 
as  a  thing  to  be  eagerly  grasped. — PRINCIPAL  HILL.  Did  not  think 
equality  with  God  a  thing  to  be  seized  ivilh  violence. — S.  T.  COLER- 
IDGE. He  regarded  not  the  being  equal  with  God  as  a  thing  to  be 
eagerly  coveted. — PROFESSOR  STUART.  Did  not  esteem  it  an  object 
to  be  caught  at  to  be  on  a  parity  with  God. — DR.  J.  P.  SMITH. 


262  APPENDIX. 

"  The  Apostle,"  says  Erasmus,  "  speaks  of  Christ  as  man.  .  . 
He  did  not  usurp  to  himself  equality  with  God,  but '  humbled  him- 
self.' ....  What  is  here  rendered,  He  did  not  think  it  rob- 
bery, 6fc. ,  AMBROSE  explains,  '  He  did  not  assert,  or  arrogate  to  him- 
self, equality  with  God;  so  that  he  might  show  us  an  example  of 
humility ;  but  subjected  himself,  that  he  might  be  exalted  by  the 
Father.'  ....  But  what  excellence  did  Paul  attribute  to 
Christ,  by  saying,  that,  though  God  by  nature,  he  thought  it  not 
robbery — that  is,  knew  himself  to  be  God?  Now,  it  is  certain  that 
never  is  greater  violence  done  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  than  when, 
in  contending  wijh  heretics,  we  wrest  everything  for  the  sake  of 
victory.  Yet  I  cannot  see  with  what  propriety  this  text  makes 
against  the  Arians,  who  deny  not  that  Christ  is  a  God,  and  acknowl- 
edge him  to  be  even  a  great  God,  blessed  forever ;  but  who  believe 
that  the  Father  is  called  God,  in  a  manner  peculiarly  distinguished 
above  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  St.  Paul  does  not  here  treat 
of  what  Christ  was,  but  how  he  acted,  namely,  by  giving  to  us  an 
example.  He  was  both  God  and  man  ;  but  he  concealed  his  divin- 
ity, whilst  he  exhibited  his  human  nature  to  the  very  tomb  ;  for  even 
others  have  been  eminent  for  the  miracles  which  they  performed  ; 
and  if  incidentally  he  did  throw  out  scintillations  of  his  divine  nature, 
he  referred  them  at  all  times  to  the  Father,  and  arrogated  nothing 
to  himself.  The  whole  passage,  therefore,  seems  to  me  to  be  most 
violently  misapplied  to  the  nature  of  Christ ;  since  Paul  is  treating 
only  of  his  appearance  as  manifested  to  us."  Annot.  in  Op.  torn, 
•vi.,  pp.  867,  868. 

In  regard  to  this  passage,  Professor  Stuart  says,  "  Our  common 
version  ....  seems  to  render  nugatory,  or  at  least  irrelevant,  a 
part  of  the  Apostle's  reasoning  in  this  passage.  He  is  enforcing 

the  principle  of  Christian  humility  upon  the  Philippians 

But  how  was  it  any  proof  or  example  of  humility,  that  he  did  not 
think  it  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God?"  Ans.  to  Channing,  Let. 
iii.,  II.  p.  84. 

The  above  extracts  are  taken  from  the  Concessions  of  Trinitarians, 
pp.  476—480. 


APPENDIX.  263 

F. 

"  Our  author  takes  for  granted,"  says  Pitkin,  "  what  is  by  no 
means  admitted,  that  Jesus  in  calling  himself  the  root  of  David  meant 
that  he  was  the  '  source  of  David's  being.'  In  several  instances  in 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  he  is  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  a  ROOT, 
but  nowhere,  we  believe,  in  connexions  which  should  induce  us  to 
regard  him  as  the  prime  source  of  all  being.  In  Isa.  liii.  2,  he  is 
spoken  of  as  '  a  ROOT  out  of  a  dry  ground,'  and  the  same  prophet,  as 
quoted  by  Paul,  Rom.  xv.  12,  says  in  respect  to  him,  '  There  shall 
be  a  ROOT  of  Jesse,  and  he  shall  rise  to  reign  over  the  Gentiles,  in 
him  shall  the  Gentiles  trust.'  Here  it  is  declared,  that  '  there  shall 
be  a  root  of  Jesse,'  not  that  there  was  from  all  eternity  a  root  from 
which  Jesse  was  to  spring,  the  source  of  Jesse'' s  being.  No,  the  evi- 
dent meaning  is,  that  from  the  seed  of  Jesse  there  shall  be  a  root, 
which  root  is  Christ,  in  whom  the  Gentiles  were  to  trust.  So  the 
obvious  meaning  of  the  declaration  of  our  Lord,  '  1  am  the  root  and 
the  offspring  of  David,  the  bright  and  morning  star,'  appears  to  be 
this  ;  that  as  a  lineal  descendant,  in  a  legal  point  of  view,  from  the 
seed  of  David,  he  was  his  offspring,  and  that  in  his  official  capacity 
as  the  Messiah,  he  became  the  ROOT  of  the  choicest  hopes  and 
expectations  of  David,  and  of  the  chief  glory  of  his  house  and  peo- 
ple. In  a  like  sense  many  a  child  has  been  exalted  to  official  sta- 
tions, which  rendered  him  his  father's  lord,  and  a  fruitful  root  of 
his  prosperity  and  honor."  From  Pitkin 's  Reply  to  Baker,  as  re- 
printed in  Charleston,  1843,  pp.  63,  64. 


G. 

The  extracts  which  follow  are  from  the  Concessions  of  Trinita- 
rians, p.  579. 

"  A  great  lord  is  termed  Lord  of  lords,  because  he  possesses 
authority  over  many  other  Lords.  The  title  King  of  kings  is  used 
of  him  who  rules  over  a  number  of  kings ;  and  was  formerly  em- 
ployed of  the  sovereigns  of  Persia,  Assyria,  Babylon,  and  Egypt." 
— DRUSIUS. 

"  King  of  kings,  or  God's  vicegerent  over  the  whole  earth  ;  a  title 


264  APPENDIX. 

belonging  to  him  alone  whom  God  hath  anointed  his  king,  Ps.  ii.  2, 
6." — PYLE.  (Similarly  interpreted  by  Grotius  and  the  Assembly's 
Annotator.) 

"  On  account  of  his  exaltation  to  heaven,  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
the  Father,  Jesus  is  called  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords. — 
LIMBORCH  :  Theol.  Christ,  lib.  ii.,  cap.  2,  $  16.  (To  the  same  pur- 
port, Archbishop  SECKER,  Lect.  vii.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  102,  103.) 

"  Even  as  man,  Christ  is  the  King  of  kings,  and  the  Lord  of 
lords." — CALMET  on  chap.  xix.  16. 

"  King  of  kings,  according  to  the  style  of  the  oriental  languages, 
answers  to  great,  as  if  it  was  the  great  king,  which  was  the  style  of 
the  Greeks  when  they  spoke  of  the  Persian  monarchy.  But  such 
reduplications  were  not  so  proper  to  the  oriental  style,  but  that,  to 
show  the  excellency  of  anything,  the  Greeks  and  Romans  used  them 
too ;  of  which  many  instances  might  be  given  out  of  the  best  au- 
thors."— DAUBUZ  on  chap.  xix.  16. 


H. 

"  No  text  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  more  frequently  cited, 
perhaps,  in  proof  of  the  Trinity,  than  the  last  verse  of  Paul's  second 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  It  is  a  benediction.  '  The  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  participation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all.'  Here,  it  is  said,  are  the  ihree  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity,  brought  together,  made  equal,  and  more  than 
this,  made  the  objects  of  worship.  But  all  appearance  of  intimating 
such  a  doctrine,  is  instantly  dissipated  by  a  consideration,  which 
seems  to  have  been  strangely  overlooked.  The  second  person  of 
this  Trinity  is  God,  the  whole  Deity,  without  any  distinciion  of  per- 
sons. 'The  love  of  God.'  So  far  then  from  supporting  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  this  passage  contains  a  strong  argument 
against  it.  Divinity  is  by  implication  denied  to  Christ,  for  he  is 
spoken  of  in  connexion  with  God,  but  as  distinct  from  him.  '  The 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God.'  There  is  no 
intimation  that  these  two  persons  are  one  being,  or  that  they  are 
both  God,  or  constitute  one  God.  One  is  God  in  the  most  unlimited 


APPENDIX.  265 

sense,  comprehending  the  three  persons,  if  (he  word  God  ever  can 
be  supposed  to  do  so.  The  other  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  con- 
nected with  God  by  the  particle  and,  proving,  if  anything  can 
prove,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  out  of  the  Deity,  and  not  in  it. 

"  In  the  last  clause  the  word  '  fellowship  '  serves  to  mystify  this 
passage.  In  common  language,  this  word  is  nearly  synonymous 
with  the  word  '  companionship,'  and  would  seem  to  intimate  that 
the  Apostle  wished  the  early  Christians  the  companionship  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  But  the  English  word,  which  comes  nearest  to  it,  is 
'  participation.'  We  have  fellowship  with  a  person,  but  participa- 
tion in  a  thing.  It  is  only  by  a  figure  of  speech,  that  we  can  partici- 
pate in  a  person.  We  participate  in  a  thing  without  a  figure.  The 
meaning,  therefore,  evidently  is,  '  May  you  be  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.' 

"  The  phrase,  '  the  Holy  Spirit,'  so  far  from  indicating  a  person, 
is  in  the  original  in  the  neuter  gender,  signifying  that  it  is  not  a 
person,  but  a  thing.  There  are  doubts  then,  suggested  by  the  very 
language,  not  only  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  Person  of  the 
Trinity,  but  whether  it  be  a  person  at  all.  Those  doubts  are  much 
strengthened,  when  we  compare  such  parallel  passages  as  these  ; 
'  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence.' 
The  same  writer  expresses  the  same  meaning  in  another  place  ;  '  I 
send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you — ye  shall  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high.'  To  be  baptized  with  a  person,  hardly  makes 
sense.  Besides,  what  is  called  the  '  Holy  Ghost,'  in  one  passage, 
is  evidently  called  '  power  from  on  high*  in  the  other.  Power  from 
on  high  is  evidently  not  a  person." — Bitmap's  Expository  lectures, 
pp.  13—15. 


I. 

It  is  a  frequent  complaint  of  Trinitarians  against  Unitarians,  that 
they  love  to  bring  forward  great  names  in  support  cxf  their  system. 
It  is  certainly  very  pleasant  to  find  ourselves  in  good  company  ;  yet 
if  all  the  great  men  in  the  world  had  embraced  a  certain  opinion, 
however  such  a  circumstance  might  add  weight  and  dignity  to  that 
opinion,  it  would  be  no  certain  evidence  of  its  truth.  But  when 
23 


APPENDIX. 

Trinitarians  stoutly  deny  what  Unitarians  believe  to  be  a  fact,  it 
becomes  the  duty  of  the  latter  to  give  the  reasons  for  their  belief  of 
the  fact.  In  regard  to  the  religious  opinions  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
I  will  make  a  few  extracts  from  Sparks1  Inquiry.  "  Sir  Isaac 
Newton,"  says  he,  "  was  one  of  the  first,  who  formally  engaged  in 
proving  the  spuriousness  of  the  famous  text  of  the  three  heavenly 
witnesses,  1  John  v.  7  ;  and  also  in  showing  that  the  received  read- 
ing of  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  is  a  corruption.  This  subject  was  discussed  in 
two  letters  said  to  have  been  written  to  Le  Clerc.  The  language 
and  arguments  are  precisely  such  as  would  be  used  by  Unitarians, 
and  such  as  Trinitarians  of  that  day,  before  the  controversy 
touching  those  passages  had  been  much  agitated,  could  not  be  sup- 
posed to  have  employed.  In  adverting  to  the  testimony  of  Cyprian, 
Newton  observes,  that,  '  he  does  not  say,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  in  1  John  v.  7,  but  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  it  is  in  Baptism,  the  place  from  which  they 
at  first  TRIED  to  derive  the  Trinity.1  Do  you  believe,"  inquires 
Mr.  Sparks,  "  this  language  ever  escaped  from  a  Trinitarian  ? 
Instead  of  indicating  any  confidence  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  does 
it  not  strongly  imply  that  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  have  TRIED 
in  vain  to  find  it  in  a  text,  to  which  they  have  universally  resorted 
as  a  strong-hold  ?  The  person  who  can  read  these  Letters  with  an 
unshaken  conviction  that  the  author  was  not  an  anti-Trinitarian,  must 
have  a  rule  of  deciding  the  meaning  of  a  writer  from  his  language, 
which  few  will  apprehend It  is  known,  that  Erasmus  re- 
ceived the  text  of  the  three  witnesses  into  his  Testament  on  the 
authority  of  a  single  manuscript  in  England.  He  doubted  the  value 
of  this  manuscript,  and  wrote  much  against  it.  Newton  says,  that 
his  adversaries  in  England  never  answered  his  accusations,  '  but,  on 
the  contrary,  when  they  had  got  the  Trinity  into  his  edition,  they 
threw  by  their  manuscript,  if  they  had  one,  as  an  almanac  out  of 
date.'  It  may  be  doubted,"  Mr.  Sparks  quaintly  observes,  "  whe- 
ther a  Trinitarian  would  thus  have  spoken." 

"  When  Sir  Isaac  Newton  was  Master  of  the  Mint,  the  office  of 
Assay  Master  was  filled  by  Mr.  Hopton  Haynes.  This  gentleman 
was  a  Unitarian,  and  wrote  with  much  ability  and  learning  a  treatise 
on  the  subject,  which  has  recently  been  several  times  republished.* 
Mr.  Haynes,  who  was  long  and  intimately  acquainted  with  Newton, 

*  This  work  is  called  a  Scripture  Account  of  the  Attributes  and  Worship 
of  God,  and  of  the  Character  and  Offices  of  Jesus  Christ. 


APPENDIX.  267 

declared  to  a  friend,*  that  '  he  did  not  believe  our  Lord's  preexist- 
ence,  being  a  Socinian,  as  we  call  it,  in  that  article ;  and  that  Sir 
Isaac  much  lamented  Dr.  Clarke's  embracing  Arianism,  which 
opinion  he  feared  had  been,  and  still  would  be,  if  maintained  by 
learned  men,  a  great  obstruction  to  the  progress  of  Christianity.'  .  .  . 
There  is  yet  another  argument  directly  in  point,  and  in  my  mind  an 
unanswerable  one.  It  is  well  known,  that  Newton  left  several 
papers  on  theological  subjects,  which  have  never  been  permitted  to 
come  before  the  world.  They  were  cautiously  excluded  from 
Horsley's  large  edition  of  his  works.  These  papers  have  been  said 
to  contain  more  at  large  the  author's  views  of  the  Unitarian  system  ; 
nor  has  this  report  been  contradicted  by  the  persons  who  hold  the 
papers  in  their  possession.  It  was  not  contradicted  by  Horsley, 
who  examined  the  papers,  and  declared  them  unsuitable  for  publica- 
tion. What  could  Horsley  find  in  any  theological  writings  of  Sir 
Isaac  Newton ,  which  he  deemed  proper  to  keep  in  the  dark  ?  This 
question  has  been  answered  in  conformity  with  the  common  sense  of 
mankind,  by  a  writer,  who  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  spoken  from 
interested  motives.  '  Newton's  religious  opinions  were  not  orthodox. 
For  example,  he  did  not  believe  in  the  Trinity.  This  gives  us  the 
reason  why  Horsley,  the  champion  of  the  Trinity,  found  Newton's 
papers  unfit  for  publication.  But  it  is  much  to  be  regretted,  that 
they  have  never  seen  the  light.'  f  ....  I  will  only  add,  that  Dr. 
Chalmers  has  confessed  his  belief  in  the  Unitarian  sentiments  of 
Newton — awkwardly  enough,  to  be  sure,  but  still  it  is  a  confession 
— and  this,  after  making  him  not  only  the  greatest  and  wisest  phi- 
losopher, but  the  acutest  and  profoundest  theologian,  whom  the  world 
has  seen. "J — Sparks'  Inquiry,  pp.  367 — 374. 

Speaking  of  Unitarian  tenets,  LORD  JEFFREY  said,  "  to  which 
there  is  reason  to  believe  neither  Milton  nor  Newton  were  dis- 
inclined."— Concessions  of  Trinitarians,  p.  6. 

*  The  Rev.  Richard  Baron,  "  a  person  of  great  probity  and  public  spirit, 
and  known  by  many  valuable  publications." 

t  Thompson's  History  of  Ike  Royal  Society,  p.  283  ;  Annals  of  Philosophy, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  322  ;  as  quoted  by  Mardon. 

t  Compare  the  Preface  to  Dr.  Chalmers'  Discourses  with  the  second  ser- 
mon iu  the  course.  See  likewise  Unitarian  Miscellany,  vol.  i.,  p.  167. 

For  further  information  respecting  the  sentiments  of  Newton,  consult  Mar- 
don's  Letters  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chalmers ;  and  Carpenter's  Examination  of 
Magee's  Charges  against  Unitarians  and  Unitarianism,  p.  102. 


£63  APPENDIX. 


K. 

If  I  am  in  error,  my  error  has  cost  me  dear.  In  proclaiming  my 
adherence  to  another  faith  than  that  in  which  I  was  educated,  I  have 
had  very  little  to  gain,  and  a  vast  deal — almost  everything — to  lose. 
The  excellent  John  Hales,  in  his  letter  to  Archbishop  Laud,  has 
some  remarks  which  so  exactly  suit  my  views,  that  I  cannot  forbear 
quoting  them.  "  If  they  be  errors  which  I  have  here  vented,"  says 
he,  "  as  perchance  they  are,  yet  my  will  hath  no  part  in  them,  and 
they  are  but  the  issues  of  unfortunate  inquiry.  Galen,  that  great 
physician,  speaks  thus  of  himself :  'I  know  not  how,'  says  that 
worthy  person,  'even  from  my  youth  up,  in  a  wonderful  manner, 
whether  by  divine  inspiration,  or  by  fury  and  possession,  or  what- 
ever you  may  please  to  style  it,  I  have  much  contemned  the  opinion 
of  the  many  ;  but  truth  and  knowledge,  I  have  above  measure 
affected,  verily  persuading  myself,  that  a  fairer,  more  divine  fortune 
could  never  befall  a  man.'  Some  title,  some  claim,"  says  Hales,  "  I 
may  justly  lay  to  the  words  of  this  excellent  person  ;  for  the  pursuit 
of  truth  has  been  my  only  care  ;  ever  since  I  first  understood  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  For  this,  I  have  forsaken  all  hopes,  all 
friends,  all  desires,  which  might  bias  me,  and  hinder  me  from  driv- 
ing right  at  what  I  aimed.  For  this,  I  have  spent  my  money,  my 
moans,  my  youth,  my  age,  and  all  I  have ;  that  I  might  remove 
from  myself  that  censure  of  Tertullian, — Suo  ritio  qitis  ^uidignorat  ? 
If,  with  all  this  cost  and  pains,  my  purchase  is  but  error,  I  may 
safely  say,  to  err  hath  cost  me  more,  than  it  has  many  to  find  the 
truth  ;  and  truth  itself  shall  give  me  this  testimony,  that  if  1  have 
missed  of  her,  it  is  not  my  fault,  but  my  misfortune." 


L. 

In  regard  to  the  high  tone  of  morality  among  Unitarians,  Bishop 
Burnet  says,  "  I  must  also  do  this  right  to  the  Unitarians  as  to  own, 
that  their  rules  in  morality  are  exact  and  severe  ;  that  they  are 
generally  men  of  probity,  justice,  and  charity,  and  seem  to  be  very 
much  in  earnest  in  pressing  the  obligations  to  very  high  degrees  in 
virtue." — BISHOP  BURNET  ;  apud  Field's  letters,  p.  26.  See  also 


APPENDIX.  269 

life  of  Burnet,  prefixed  to  the  "  History  of  His  Own  Time,"  vol.  i., 
pp.  8,  9.  Lond.  1818. 

DR.  ADAMS  says,  "  with  regard  to  their  moral  code,  the  principles 
of  the  Unitarians  do  not  seem  to  admit  of  their  loosening,  in  the 
least,  the  honds  of  duty  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  appear  to  be  actuated 
by  an  earnest  desire  to  promote  practical  religion.  Love  is,  with 
them,  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  ;  and  the  habitual  practice  of  virtue, 
from  a  principle  of  love  to  God,  and  benevolence  to  man,  is,  in  their 
judgment,  the  sum  and  substance  of  Christianity." — Religious 
World  Displayed ;  apud  Field's  letters,  p.  25. 

The  above  testimonies  are  taken  from  "  Concessions  of  Trinita- 
rians," p.  4. 


M. 


"  The  meaning  of  this  charge,"  says  Dr.  Gannett,  namely,  that 
Unitarianism  is  a  negative  system,  "  may  be  that  our  faith  embraces 
few  positive  or  affirmative  propositions.  This  is  doubtless  the  sense 
in  which  we  should  take  the  remark,  that  '  it  is  a  system  of  nega- 
tions.' It  has  been  said,  with  an  attempt  at  smartness,  that  it  '  con- 
sists in  not  believing.'  The  ground  of  this  assertion  is  the  fact,  that 
the  Unitarian  Christian  does  not  receive  certain  doctrines  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  or  Orthodox  theology.  With  equal  reason  therefore  might 
the  Calvinistic  faith  be  said  to  consist  in  not  believing,  because  the 
disciple  of  this  school  rejects  the  peculiar  dogmas  of  other  still 

larger  divisions  of  the  Christian  Church A  cursory  survey 

of  what  we  do  believe,  may  show  how  far  the  assertion  is  correct, 
that  our  faith  is  of  a  negative  character  in  respect  to  its  doctrines. 

"  We  do  then  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  God  ;  a  Being  of  infi- 
nite perfection — a  pure  Spirit — the  Author,  Sovereign,  and  Father 
of  the  Universe — the  spring  of  peace  and  joy.  We  believe  in  a 
moral  government  of  the  universe  ;  by  which  all  intelligent  creatures 
are  made  subject  to  wise  and  immutable  laws.  We  believe  in  a 
righteous  providence  ;  within  which  all  things  are  included.  We 
believe  in  the  moral  nature  of  man  ;  in  his  freedom  of  choice,  his 
capacity  of  improvement,  and  his  liability  to  err.  We  believe  in  the 
divine  mission  of  Jesus  Christ ;  in  his  miracles,  his  perfect  character, 
23* 


270  APPENDIX. 

his  authoritative  teaching,  his  voluntary  death,  and  his  triumphant 
resurrection.  We  believe  in  the  necessity  of  obedience  to  the  will 
of  God,  and  of  repentance  for  sin  ;  and  in  the  inseparable  connexion 
between  goodness  and  happiness  on  the  one  hand,  and  wickedness 
and  misery  on  the  other.  We  believe  in  the  immortality  and 
accountableness  of  man  ;  in  spiritual  judgment  and  future  retribution. 
We  believe  in  the  authority  and  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  in 
respect  both  to  faith  and  to  practice.  We  believe  in  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  and  in  the  importance  of  a  deep 
and  permanent  change  in  them  who  lead  vicious  or  careless  lives. 
To  sum  up  all  in  one  line,  we  believe  in  God,  in  Christ,  in  duty 
here,  and  in  recompense  hereafter. 

"  Now  if  this  exposition  of  our  belief  does  not  contain  enough 
which  is  affirmative  or  positive  in  its  character,  it  would  be  useless 
to  collect  any  further  evidence  to  the  same  effect.  We  are  neither 
atheists  nor  infidels.  We  disbelieve  a  great  deal  that  has  been  be- 
lieved ;  and  we  thank  God  that  we  have  escaped  the  contagion  of 
many  errors  which  have  prevailed  in  the  world.  But  we  also 
believe  a  great  deal ;  nothing  which  is  unintelligible  or  contradictory 
to  sound  reason,  but  much  which  reason  alone  would  not  have 
taught  us.  What  we  do  believe,  we  find  in  the  Bible.  What  we 
find  in  the  Bible,  as  a  revelation  from  God,  we  believe." — Christian 
Unitarianism  not  a  negative  system.  Tract  No.  94,  1st  series, 
pp.  4,  5,  6. 


N. 

It  is  very  clear  that  many  of  the  harsh  features  of  the  Calvinistic 
system  have  been  softened  down — some  of  its  absurdities  abandoned, 
and  a  milder  and  more  rational  faith  substituted — chiefly  through  the 
influence,  as  I  confidently  believe,  of  Unitarianism.  Where  is  the 
clergyman  of  ihe  present  day  who  dares  preach  the  doctrine  of  the 
damnation  of  infants?  And  how  few  are  there  among  those  who 
call  themselves  Orthodox,  who  now  venture  to  preach  the  doctrines 
of  absolute  and  unconditional  election  and  reprobation  ? 


APPENDIX.  271 


o. 

Some  remarks  which  I  have  met  with  in  the  Christian  Examiner 
for  September  and  Ocloher,  1826,  are  appropriate,  and  will  give 
additional  illustration  to  my  meaning.  The  writer  is  asserting  that 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  atonement  is  essentially  opposed  to  the 
glorious  and  perfect  character  of  God  ;  and  he  says,  "  Here,  per- 
haps, it  will  be  said,  that  I  have  only  marshalled  in  array  the  nat- 
ural sentiments  of  an  evil  and  shortsighted  man,  against  what  is 
said  of  an  infinite  Being,  whose  designs  are  too  vast  for  him  to  com- 
prehend, and  therefore  such  as  he  is  not  to  sit  in  judgment  upon,  by 
his  notions  of  what  is  right,  or  bis  notions  of  what  is  wrong.  But 
to  this  it  may  be  replied,  as  has  often  been  replied  before  now,  that 
it  is  one  thing,  and  a  very  presumptuous  thing,  for  unassisted  reason 
to  say  what  God  will  do  ;  but  quite  another,  and  a  very  allowable 
thing,  to  say  what  he  does  not  do,  and  never  will.*  But  since  I 
believe  all  his  communications  to  mankind  have  had  respect  to  the 
measure  of  their  capacities,  and  that  he  will  never,  by  his  conduct, 
shock  the  moral  feelings,  or  contradict  the  natural  judgments  of  men, 
I  am  not  anxious  to  repel  this  charge.  Nay,  more  ;  as  I  also  believe 
the  doctrine  in  question  has  the  support  of  no  such  authority  as  its 
supporters  plead,  I  am  not  only  not  anxious  to  repel  it,  but  conceive 
the  fact  its  full  admission  establishes,  affords  a  ground  to  stand  on 
with  an  advantage  not  readily  to  be  yielded.  For,  if  these  natural 
sentiments  do  revolt  against  it,  there  rises  a  clear  and  unquestionable 
right  to  demand,  that  the  opinion  in  question  be  shown  to  have  for 
its  evidence,  the  clear,  explicit,  and  not  to  be  mistaken  language  of 
those  writings  in  which  alone  I  acknowledge  any  authority  over  my 
faith.  But  in  these  there  is  nothing  which  compels  me  to  think 
God  is  anything  like  the  unmerciful  being  this  doctrine  would  make 
him.  On  the  contrary,  it  appears  in  strong  lines  of  light,  from 
Moses  to  St.  John,  that  he  requires  only  repentance,  nothing  but 
repentance,!  to  remove  the  punishment  of  sin,  and  restore  offenders 
to  his  favor." 

*  For  instance  ;  it  would  be  presumptuous  indeed  to  make  out  a  series  of 
propositions,  and  say,  that  the  Deity  intended  at  some  future  day  to  adopt 
them  as  the  rules  of  his  government ;  liut  the  humblest  need  not  hesitate  to 
say.  that  he  does  not  act  the  tyrant,  and  never  will. 

t  The  word  repentance  is  used  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  denoting 
both  sorrow  for  sin,  and  reformation  of  Jiie. 


272  APPENDIX. 

" — Though  we  are  finite,  and  cannot  perceive  all  relations,  the 
marks  of  benevolent  design  so  prevail  in  all  we  do  perceive,  that  no 
mind  can  reasonably  doubt  that  the  whole  constitution  of  things,  the 
course  of  providence,  nay,  the  ministering  of  every  accident,  tends 
to  the  shaping,  and  finishing  of  GOOD.  And  it  is  hence  reason  per- 
ceives, when  an  Apostle  said,  '  God  is  Love,'  with  how  much  truth 
he  spoke." 


P. 

In  the  commencement  of  the  year  1839,  several  of  the  orthodox 
clergymen  of  Liverpool  felt  themselves  called  upon  to  preach  a 
course  of  sermons  against  the  dangerous  and  deadly  errors  of  Unita- 
rians. They  accordingly  gave  an  affectionate  invitation  "  To  those 
who  called  themselves  Unitarians  in  the  town  and  neighborhood  of 
Liverpool,"  to  attend  the  proposed  course  of  lectures.  The  Unita- 
rian clergymen,  rejoiced  at  what  they  considered  an  opportunity  for 
a  candid  and  fair  discussion  of  both  sides  of  the  question,  wrote  to 
the  orthodox  clergy,  and  proposed  several  methods  by  which  they 
"might  contribute  their  portion  of  truth  and  argument  towards  the 
correction  of  public  sentiment  on  the  great  questions  at  issue  between 
them."  "  Deeply  aware,"  said  they,  "  of  our  human  liability  to 
form  and  to  convey  false  impressions  of  views  and  systems  from 
which  we  dissent,  we  shall  be  anxious  to  pay  a  calm  and  respectful 
attention  to  your  defence  of  the  doctrines  of  your  church.  We  will 
give  notice  of  your  lectures,  as  they  succeed  each  other,  to  our  con- 
gregations, and  exhort  them  to  hear  you  in  the  spirit  of  Christian 
justice  and  affection,  presuming  that,  in  a  like  spirit,  you  will  recom- 
mend your  hearers  to  listen  to  such  reply  as  we  may  think  it  right 
to  offer." 

It  seems  to  me  that  all  persons  must  pronounce  such  a  proposition 
perfectly  fair,  and  such  an  expectation  perfectly  natural.  But  the 
very  clergyman  who  had  made  the  call  upon  the  Unitarians  of  the 
town  and  neighborhood  of  Liverpool  to  hear  what  he  had  to  say, 
answered  thus  to  the  proposition  :  "  I  am  compelled  to  reply  in  the 
negative.  Were  I  to  consent  to  this  proposal,  I  should  thereby  ad- 
mit that  we  stood  on  the  terms  of  a  religious  equality,  which  is,  in 
limine,  denied Being  unable,  (you  will  excuse  my  necessary 


APPENDIX.  273 

plainness  of  speech,)  to  recognize  you  as  Christians,  I  cannot  con- 
sent to  meet  you  in  a  way  which  would  imply  that  we  occupy  the 
same  religious  level.  To  you,  there  will  be  no  sacrifice  of  principle 
or  compromise  of  feeling,  in  entering  our  churches;  to  us,  there 
would  be  such  a  surrender  of  both  in  entering  yours,  as  would 
peremptorily  prohibit  any  such  engagement."  This  singular  refusal 
was  replied  to  in  mild,  yet  sufficiently  spirited  language.  I  should 
like  to  quote  passages  from  various  parts  of  the  preliminary  corres- 
pondence, but  must  forbear.  It  may  be  found  in  the  volume  entitled 
Unitarianism  Defended,  published  at  Liverpool  in  1839.  I  have 
quoted  the  foregoing  extracts  to  show  the  unwillingness  of  some  of 
the  orthodox  clergy  to  countenance  fair  and  honest  investigation.  I 
could  mention  many  other  instances  where  the  same  spirit  has  been 
manifested,  and  many  orthodox  theological  works  in  which  people 
are  advised  not  to  listen  to  the  arguments  of  Unitarians,  nor  to  read 
their  books  ;  but  not  having  them  at  present  by  me,  I  cannot  tell  the 
exact  places  where  such  advice  is  to  be  found. 


Q. 

In  looking  over  an  old  number  of  the  Christian  Examiner  for  1826, 
I  have  met  with  a  case  in  point,  to  show  how  impossible  it  is  for 
an  honest  mind  to  pursue  the  course  you  recommend,  and  keep  con- 
cealed what  lie  is  aware  would  cause  his  expulsion  from  an  Orthodox 
church,  if  it  were  known.  A  physician  in  the  State  of  Georgia, 
who  in  early  life  had  given  some  attention  to  the  subject  without 
having  obtained  very  definite  views,  connected  himself  finally  whh 
the  Methodist  Church.  The  cause  of  his  avowal  of  Unitarian 
sentiments  is  thus  stated.  "  In  all  this  time,"  he  says,  "  1  had 
arrived  at  no  definite  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  Trinity,  but  con- 
sidered it  one  of  those  obscure  points,  which,  having  no  reference  to 
practice,  might  be  allowed  to  remain  undisturbed.  My  opinions  were 
rather  favorable  to  the  deity  of  the  Saviour  than  otherwise.  I  con- 
tinued in  this  state  for  nearly  two  years,  when  an  observation  made 
by  Mr.  C.  in  his  sermon  aroused  me  from  my  state  of  indifference. 
He  said  that  Unitarians  no  more  deserved  the  name  of  Christians, 
than  infidels."  A  remark  exactly  tantamount  to  the  one  contained 


274  APPENDIX. 

in  the  letter  under  consideration.  "  This  remark,"  the  writer  goes 
on  to  say,  "  the  first  of  such  a  kind  that  I  had  heard,  except  from 
Mr.  W.  of  Philadelphia,  induced  me  to  think  that  I  ought  to 
state  explicitly  to  Mr.  C.  my  own  doubts,  that  he  might  adopt  such 
measures  with  regard  to  me  as  he  thought  proper.  This  I  accord- 
ingly did,  almost  immediately  after  the  meeting  was  dissolved.  I 
told  him  that  I  could  not  say  I  believed  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God,  equal 
to  the  Father,  though  I  could  not  deny  it ;  that  the  evidence  of 
Scripture  upon  that  point  was  not  clear  to  my  mind  ;  that  hitherto  I 
had  considered  its  determination  a  matter  of  but  little  moment,  since 
the  wisest  men  had  differed  in  opinion  upon  it,  and  assured  him  that 
I  knew  many  Unitarians  who  were  as  eminent  for  piety  arid  learn- 
ing as  any  with  whom  I  was  acquainted.  After  some  conversation, 
which  failed  to  convince  me,  he  cited  me  to  appear  before  a  select 
number  of  the  church,  with  a  view  to  my  expulsion,  solely  in  conse- 
quence of  what  he  considered  my  erroneous  opinions. 

"  At  the  commencement  of  the  meeting  convened  for  that  purpose, 
I  presented  to  Mr.  C.  the  first  hymn  of  the  West  Boston  Society, 
beginning  with 

'  All-seeing  God,  't  is  thine  to  know 

The  springs  whence  wrong  opinions  flow,'  &c. 
remarking  that  I  hoped  he  would  not  consider  it  irrelevant  to  the 
occasion  to  sing  that  hymn.  It  was  done.  After  the  prayer  I  in- 
quired with  great  seriousness,  whether,  at  the  time  the  citation  was 
issued,  he  thought  I  believed  the  Bible.  He  replied,  that  he  had  no 
reason  to  think  otherwise,  or  in  words  tantamount.  I  assured  them 
that  I  believed  it  most  firmly,  but  that  I  could  not  accept  the  inter- 
pretation which  men,  fallible  as  myself,  gave  of  it,  if  it  did  not  coin- 
cide with  my  own  reason,  because  that  would,  virtually,  be  to  place 
my  faith  in  the  opinions  of  men,  rather  than  on  the  word  of  God.  I 
explained  the  origin  of  the  Apostolic,  Nicene,  and  Athanasian 
creeds,  and  told  them  that  I  assented  to  the  Apostolic  in  great  part, 
and  intimated  the  absurdity  of  requiring  assent  to  a  creed  originating 
in  an  era  of  so  much  mental  debasement  as  the  Athanasian.  I  ad- 
duced passages  from  Scripture  to  prove  the  inferiority  of  Christ  to 
the  Father ;  that  he  was  not  omniscient,  nor  omnipresent.  I  then 
stated  the  awkwardness  of  the  predicament  in  which  they  were 
about  to  place  themselves  by  expelling  from  the  church  one  who 
thus  believed,  and  whose  moral  conduct  had  not  been  in  the  slightest 
degree  impeached  ;  quoted  that  article  in  the  '  Discipline '  which 


APPENDIX.  275 

declares  the  '  Holy  Scriptures  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, so  that  whatever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  there- 
by, is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man  that  it  should  be  believed  as 
an  article  of  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation  ;' 
told  them,  that  if  there  were  any  defect  in  my  mental  powers,  which 
incapacitated  me  from  seeing  the  proof  of  the  contested  doctrines, 
they  were  not  proved  to  me,  and  therefore,  by  that  article,  were  not 
required  to  be  believed. 

"  The  result  was  as  I  anticipated  They  expelled  from  a  church 
professedly  Christian,  one  who  believed  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Messiah, 
and  whose  moral  conduct  was  confessedly  without  the  shadow  of  a  suspi- 
cion, solely  because  he  could  not  do  what  was  as  impossible  as  to 
move  the  sun  from  the  firmament ;  viz. ,  believe  what  appeared 
unsupported  by  Scripture,  and  contrary  to  reason." 

I  will  close  this  note  with  a  fact  mentioned  by  the  writer  of  the 
above  quotations,  because  it  shows  how  little  is  gained,  and  how 
much  is  lost  by  those  who  employ  denunciation  instead  of  argument, 
and  hard  words  instead  of  solid  reasons.  "  Until  the  recent  denun- 
ciations," he  says,  "  of  Mr.  C.,  nothing  was  known,  I  presume,  of 
the  opinions  of  Unitarians,  by  the  generality  of  the  people.  The 
cause  of  rational  Christianity  is  unquestionably  promoted  by  the 
anathemas  which  are  fulminated  by  the  Orthodox.  A  spirit  of  inquiry 
is  awakened,  which  would  otherwise  have  lain  dormant,  and  which 
must  produce  a  favorable  result  ultimately." 

This  is  perfectly  in  accordance  with  my  opinion  on  the  subject. 
This  "  spirit  of  inquiry,"  of  which  the  Georgia  physician  speaks,  is 
all  that  we  ask  for — all  that  we  want.  Give  but  a  free  and  proper 
scope  to  that  spirit,  and  the  interests  of  liberal,  rational  Christianity 
must  be  speedily  and  universally  advanced. 


R. 

I  rejoice  to  know  that  there  are  some  Trinitarians  who  are  not 
willing  thus  to  shut  their  Unitarian  brethren  out  of  heaven.  Bishop 
Watson  says  :  "If  different  men,  in  carefully  and  conscientiously 
examining  the  Scriptures,  should  arrive  at  different  conclusions, 
even  on  points  of  the  last  importance,  we  trust  that  God,  who  alone 


276  APPENDIX. 

knows  what  every  man  is  capable  of,  will  be  merciful  to  him  that  is 
in  error.  We  trust  that  he  will  pardon  the  Unitarian,  if  he  be  in  an 
error,  because  he  has  fallen  into  it  from  the  dread  of  becoming  an 
Idolater, — of  giving  that  glory  to  another  which  he  conceives  to  be 
due  to  God  alone.  If  the  worshipper  of  Jesus  Christ  be  in  an  error, 
we  trust  that  God  will  pardon  his  mistake,  because  he  has  fallen 
into  it  from  a  dread  of  disobeying  what  he  conceives  to  be  revealed 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  Son,  or  commanded  concerning  the 
honor  to  be  given  to  him.  Both  arc  actuated  by  the  same  principle — 
the  f»ar  of  God;  and  though  that  principle  impels  them  into  differ- 
ent roads,  it  is  our  hope  and  belief,  that,  if  they  add  to  their  faith 
charity,  they  will  meet  in  heaven." — Theol.  Tracts,  vol.  i.,  pp. 
zvii.  xviii. 


S. 

I  have  recently  been  very  much  struck  with  the  sincularly  bellige- 
rent tone  of  the  popular  orthodoxy  phraseology.  It  seems  to  me 
that  Christians  are  assuming  an  attitude  far  loo  warlike  for  those 
who  profess  to  be  the  meek  and  lowly  followers  of  the  "  Prince  of 
Peace."  Most  of  the  orthodox  presses  teem  with  articles  calculated 
to  fire  the  imagination  and  fill  it  with  pictures  of  bannered  hosts,  and 
armies  marching  to  battle.  The  Editor  of  the  Christian  Register, 
in  a  recent  number  giving  an  account  of  an  anniversary  meeting  of 
the  'Christian  Alliance,'  held  at  Boston,  thus  writes  :  "  We  must 
be  permitted  again  to  express  our  surprise  that  eminent  Christian 
teachers,  who  we  know  deprecate  war  from  their  inmost  souls, 
should  allow  themselves  to  indulge  in  a  manner  of  speaking,  which 
cannot  fail  to  kindle  its  spirit  in  the  hearts  of  the  excited  crowds  in- 
flamed to  enthusiasm  by  their  eloquence.  After  listening  to  such 
language  as  the  following,  the  audience  were,  doubtless,  ready  to 

rush  to  arms.     '  Our  object  now  is,'  says  Dr. ,  '  reconnoiter- 

ing,  pioneering,  and  adopting  measures  for  bringing  all  parts  of  Pro- 
testant Christendom  to  join  in  an  united,  simultaneous  attack  upon 
the  common  enemy.  Let  the  Methodists  make  an  assault  on  one 
side,  the  Baptists  on  another ;  let  the  Congregationalists  charge  on 
one  flank,  and  the  Episcopalians  on  the  other,  until  a  breach  is 


APPENDIX.  277 

made  in  the  walls  of  Babylon,  and  then  rush  in  and  take  posses- 
sion.' 

"  Again  Dr. says  : 

'  Passing  events  portend  a  crisis  at  no  distant  day.  A  battle  is  to 
be  fought.  Ere  long  there  will  be  a  conflict  of  nations — a  war  of 
revolution.' 

"  If  our  Orthodox  brethren,"  continues  the  Editor,  "  do  not  really 
wish  to  have  the  question  between  Romanists  and  Protestants  settled 
by  the  sword,  why  indulge  in  such  fierce  and  warlike  imagery? 
We  protest  against  it  in  the  name  of  the  Peace  Society." 

I  cannot  forbear  to  quote  a  few  remarks  from  the  same  paper  in 
regard  to  the  manner  in  which  Protestants  are  carrying  on  the  war- 
fare against  Romanism.  The  same  speaker  quoted  above,  had,  in 
the  course  of  his  very  fine  address,  spoken  as  follows  : — "  We  pro- 
pose," he  says,  "  secondly,  to  unite  the  minds  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tians in  a  simultaneous  assault  on  Rome,  and  to  render  the  Reforma- 
tion again  aggressive.  Since  the  Reformation  has  ceased  to  be 
aggressive,  it  has  ceased  to  progress.  It  is  time  then  for  Protestant 
Christendom  to  act  against  the  enemy — to  take  a  position  offensive 
as  well  as  cfe-fensive.  The  result  of  our  inquiries  is,  that  union  is 
practicable.  Protestant  Christians  can  be  united  in  carrying  the 
war  to  Rome.  We  propose,  therefore,  to  make  an  assault  on  Rome 
itself." 

"  3d.  By  propagating  the  idea  of  religious  freedom,  by  bringing 
this  doctrine  in  contact  with  the  mind  of  Italy." 

"  The  doctrine  of  religious  freedom  is  a  fundamental  one.  It  lies 
at  the  foundation  of  society.  It  is  one  of  the  first  that  commends 
itself  to  our  judgment  in  childhood — it  is  so  interwoven  with  all  our 
thoughts  and  feelings,  that  to  us  it  seems  impossible  it  should  not  be 
universally  understood  and  appreciated.  The  doctrine  of  religious 
freedom,  i.  e.  that  every  man  has  a  right  to  think  and  act  under  a 
sense  of  his  responsibility  to  God,  that  he  has  in  his  hands  the  Book 
of  God, — His  revelation,  pointing  out  to  him  the  way  of  life,  pre- 
scribing to  him  his  duty,  and  that  he  has  a  right  to  read,  and  think, 
and  ascertain  what  God  would  have  him  to  do.  It  is  the  doctrine 
which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  Reformation.  There  is  no  other  judg- 
ment but  private  judgment.  The  Reformation  rests  on  it.  It  was 
this  doctrine  which  began  and  carried  it  on,  though  it  has  not  been 
carried  out  in  full  in  any  other  country  but  this.  In  England  there 
24 


278  APPENDIX. 

was  an  approximation  to  it,  and  a  partial  approximation  in 
France." 

"  It  moreover  lies  at  the  foundation  of  Christianity,  and  the  Pope 
knows  it.  How  was  Christianity  introduced  to  Rome1?  He  will 
say,  Peter  preached  it ;  but  I  say,  no.  Turn  to  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  Paul  will  tell  you  how  it  came  there.  But,  granting 
it  was  first  preached  at  Rome  by  Peter,  how  was  it  introduced  ?  By 
a  course  of  procedure  similar  to  that  we  propose  to  adopt  now.  If 
he  went  there,  he  went  in  the  exercise  of  his  private  judgment — all 
that  received  it,  embraced  it  in  the  exercise  of  their  private  judg- 
ment. No  man  can  act  otherwise,  and  act  rationally.  The  right  to 
breathe  the  vital  air,  to  walk  on  God's  earth,  to  use  our  arms  and  our 
feet,  is  not  more  obvious  than  the  right  to  use  the  reason  with  which 
God  has  endowed  us.  If  by  disseminating  this  doctrine  in  Italy,  we 
should  blow  up  the  Pope's  powder  magazine,  if  we  should  overturn 
his  throne,  we  cannot  help  it, — he  should  have  kept  out  of  the  way. 
We  are  proclaiming  God's  truth, — we  are  doing  God's  work,  and 
we  are  not  concerned  about  the  results  which  may  follow.  Such  is 
the  work  before  us." 

The  Editor  then  remarks  :  "  If  our  Orthodox  brethren  would  but 
carry  ont  these  sentiments,  they  might  form  a  '  Christian  Alliance,' 
which  would  amount  to  something  more  than  mere  boasting.  Dr. 

has  justly  defined  the  principle  of  the  Reformation.  If  all  who 

act  on  that  principle  were  combined  together,  if  they  were  all  admit- 
ted into  the  ranks — to  adopt  the  fashionable  evangelical  imagery — 
then  perhaps  the  Pope  might  be  in  danger  of  having  '  his  powder 
magazine  blown  up.'  But  for  a  few  self-selected  sects  to  form  an 
exclusive  combination,  and  denounce  all  who  do  not  surrender  the 
right  which  Dr. so  forcibly  maintains,  and  adopt  a  creed  im- 
posed by  the  clique,  to  undertake  to  overthrow  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion  by  such  a  narrow  policy,  is  perfectly  ridiculous.  If  they 
are  in  earnest  in  their  apprehensions  of  the  spread  of  Popery,  let 
them  summon  the  entire  hosts  of  Protestantism  to  the  rescue,  and 
not  betray  the  cause  by  dividing  and  distracting  the  forces  of  its 
friends.  As  it  is,  these  self-complacent  sectaries  who  denominate 
themselves  the  '  Christian  Alliance,'  are  placing  themselves  between 
two  fires,  and  provoking  the  hostility  of  the  two  great  elemental 
principles  of  the  Church  and  of  Society.  They  are  battling  against 
uniformity,  implicit  faith,  and  Church  authority,  as  they  are  em- 
bodied in  the  Papal  system,  and  against  the  right  of  private  judg- 


APPENDIX.  279 

ment,  and  free  inquiry,  in  the  entire  mass  of  liberal  Christians, 
whom  they  exclude  from  cooperation  with  them,  and  excommuni- 
cate with  an  intolerance  and  arrogated  infallibility  as  glaring  and 
offensive  as  that  of  Rome  herself.*  If  the  movement  against  Popery 
were  placed  upon  a  footing,  on  which  all  Protestants  could  rally,  we 
should  promptly  and  earnestly  engage  in  it.  But  conducted  in  the 
narrow  spirit,  in  which  it  is  by  the  Presbyterians  and  Orthodox 
generally,  what  rational  and  reflecting  person  can  wonder  that  the 
Romanists  are  increasing  with  fearful  rapidity  1" 

In  regard  to  the  popular  warlike  phraseology,  I  would  remark,  that 
it  is  true  that  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  sometimes  made  use 
of  such  expressions,  but  they  were  generally  used  in  allusion  to,  the 
Christian's  internal  conflicts,  which  are  indeed  perpetual.  But  it 
ought  especially  to  be  remembered  that  he  lived  in  an  age  when  the 
world's  position  was  essentially  different  from  what  it  is  at  present. 
The  Roman  nation  was  a  nation  of  soldiers,  and  all  the  civilized 
world  was  under  the  Roman  government.  Paul  himself  was  a 
Roman  citizen.  It  was  necessary,  before  any  man  could  be  a  can- 
didate for  office,  that  he  should  serve  ten  years  as  a  soldier.  "  At 
the  age  of  seventeen,"  says  Burnap,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  History 
of  Christianity,  "  every  Roman  citizen  was  liable  to  be  enrolled  and 
sent  to  the  wars.  When  he  arrived  at  the  camp,  he  entered  on  a 
course  of  life,  in  which  ease  and  indulgence  were  altogether  un- 
k/iown.  He  commenced  a  discipline  of  hardship  and  endurance, 
which,  were  it  not  made  certain  by  historic  records,  would  at  this 
period  of  the  world  be  utterly  incredible.  He  was  there  furnished 
with  a  shield  of  sufficient  size  to  protect  his  whole  body,  and  thick 
and  strong  enough  to  resist  the  force  of  arrows,  swords,  and  spears ; 
two  javelins  of  some  four  feet  in  length,  armed  at  the  end  with  a 
three-cornered  blade  of  about  eighteen  inches.  To  these  was  added 
a  two-edged  sword,  sharp  at  the  point,  equally  calculated  to  strike 
or  to  thrust,  as  occasion  might  need.  Boots  for  the  defence  of  the 
legs,  a  breastplate  of  brass,  a  cap  of  the  same,  surmounted  by  a 
lofty  plume,  completed  his  panoply,  and  made  him  an  object  at  once 
beautiful  and  terrible  to  the  beholder.  In  addition  to  his  heavy  ar- 
mor, the  Roman  soldier  was  compelled  to  march  under  the  furniture 
of  his  tent,  a  burden  which  the  puny  men  of  our  times  would  find 
themselves  altogether  unable  to  sustain.  When  they  had  arrived  at 

*  In  proof  of  this  I  have  only  to  refer  to  the  extracts  from  the  letters  to 
which  I  am  now  replying. — M.  S.  B.  D. 


280  APPENDIX. 

the  end  of  a  fatiguing  day's  march,  not  an  eye  could  be  closed  in 
sleep,  nor  a  limb  composed  to  rest,  till  their  camp  was  surrounded  by 
a  trench  twelve  feet  wide  and  twelve  feet  deep,  surmounted  by  a 
breastwork  of  the  same  dimensions.  When  they  were  stationary, 
not  a  day  nor  an  hour  was  lost.  Their  whole  time  was  taken  up  in 
military  and  athletic  exercises,  which  either  gave  strength  and  vigor 
to  their  bodies,  or  skill  and  dexterity  to  the  use  of  their  weapons. 
Such  for  nine  centuries  was  a  Roman  army,  not  a  day  for  the 
whole  time  that  it  did  not  exist  and  perform  its  various  functions." 

Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  exceedingly  natural  that  the 
sagacious  Apostle  should  clothe  his  thoughts  in  such  language  as 
would  be  most  readily  understood.  For  many  centuries  men  had 
constantly  lived  in  a  state  of  warfare,  and  their  ideas  would  natu- 
rally take  their  hue  from  the  complexion  of  the  times. 

But  now,  under  the  influence  of  the  gospel,  there  is,  to  a  great 
extent,  "  peace  on  earth,"  and  there  ought  to  be,  and  there  must  be, 
before  Christ's  kingdom  can  universally  come,  "  good  will  to  man," 
from  his  brother  man.  That  there  will  be  an  increasing  conflict  of 
opinions,  the  more  men  learn  to  think  for  themselves,  and  to  throw 
off  the  shackles  of  human  authority  and  tradition,  there  can  be  no 
doubt ;  but  the  weapons  for  this  warfare  are  spiritual,  not  carnal ; 
the  victory  is  to  be  gained  by  a  firm  and  open  adherence  to  truth 
and  duty,  and  not  by  denunciation,  and  the  array  of  hostile  forces. 


T. 

An  Orthodox  clergyman  of  very  high  standing,  recently,  in  a 
letter  to  me,  objected  to  the  use  of  the  term  "  Supreme  God,"  as 
applied  to  Christ.  "  That  is  a  phrase,"  said  he,  "  which  I  have 
never,  that  I  know  of,  once  employed  myself;  for  which  I  have 
never  felt  any  predilection  ;  which  I  regard  as  unscriptural  and 
improper,  because  it  seems  to  make  the  Son  even  superior  to  the 
Father."  To  this  I  replied:  "I  begin  to  think  you  are  some- 
what of  a  Unitarian  yourself  when  you  say  that  you  regard  the 
phrase  '  the  Supreme  God,'  as  applied  to  Christ,  as  '  unscriptural 
and  improper.'  You  would  not,  I  presume,  be  unwilling  to  apply 
the  same  phrase  to  the  Father.  It  would  not,  I  imagine,  be  unscrip- 
tural and  improper  to  call  him  the  Supreme  God.  There  certainly 


APPENDIX.  281 

is  a  supreme  God,  and  if  the  Father  is  not  that  Being,  who  is  ? 
But  if  Christ  is  equal  with  the  Father,  '  the  same  in  substance, 
equal  in  power  and  glory,'  as  the  Catechism  says,  why  is  he  not  the 
supreme  God  too  1  Why  has  he  not  just  as  good  a  right  to  the  title  as 
the  Father?  Look  at  it  candidly,  and  tell  me,  what  possible  differ- 
ence can  there  be  between  two  equal  beings  ?  If  the  title  '  supreme 
God,'  applied  to  Christ,  makes  him  superior  to  the  Father,  then  the 
same  title,  applied  to  the  Father,  makes  him  superior  to  the  Son. 
Is  not  this  a  logical  inference?  But  if  you  believe  the  Father 
to  be  superior  to  the  Son,  you  are  no  Trinitarian,  in  the  present  sense 
of  that  term;  for  the  Confession  of  Faith  asserts  that  they  are  equal; 
and  if  they  are  equal,  one  cannot  be  superior  to  the  other.  Perhaps 
you  believe  that,  in  the  Son  and  Spirit,  we  see  only  different  mani- 
festations of  the  same  God  ;  in  that  case,  you  are  only  a  modal  Trini- 
tarian ;  in  other  words,  a  Unitarian,'1'' 


U. 

I  have  just  met  with  a  very  fine  argument  on  this  very  point  in 
Professor  Norton's  Statement  of  Reasons,  which  I  will  here  intro- 
duce for  the  same  reasons  which  have  made  me  draw  so  largely  upon 
Professor  Sparks  ;  while  I  would  as  heartily  recommend  the  perusal 
of  the  whole  work  to  those  who  feel  an  interest  in  this  matter. 
Professor  Norton  says  :  "  It  is  evident  from  the  Scriptures,  that 
none  of  those  effects  were  produced,  which  would  necessarily  have 
resulted  from  its  first  annunciation  by  Christ,  and  its  consequent  com- 
munication by  his  Apostles.  The  disciples  of  our  Saviour  must,  at 
some  period,  have  considered  him  merely  as  a  man.  Such  he  was, 
to  all  appearance,  and  such,  therefore,  they  must  have  believed  him 
to  be.  Before  he  commenced  his  ministry,  his  relations  and  felldw- 
townsmen  certainly  regarded  him  as  nothing  more  than  a  man.  '  Is 
not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  the  brother  of  James  and 
Joseph,  and  of  Judas  and  Simon?  And  are  not  his  sisters  here 
with  us  all?'  At  some  particular  period,  the  communication  must 
have  been  made  by  our  Saviour  to  his  disciples,  that  he  was  not  a 
mere  man,  but  that  he  was,  properly  speaking,  and  in  the  highest 
sense,  God  himself.  The  doctrines  with  which  we  are  contending, 
and  other  doctrines  of  a  similar  character,  have  so  obscured  and  con- 
24* 


282  APPENDIX. 

fused  the  whole  of  Christianity,  that  even  its  historical  facts  appear 
to  be  regarded  by  many  scarcely  in  the  light  of  real  occurrences. 
But  we  may  carry  ourselves  back  in  imagination  to  the  time  when 
Christ  was  on  earth,  and  place  ourselves  in  the  situation  of  the  first 
believers.  Let  us  then  reflect  for  a  moment  on  what  would  be  the 
state  of  our  own  feelings,  if  some  one  with  whom  we  had  associated 
as  a  man,  were  to  declare  to  us  that  he  was  really  God  himself.  If 
his  character  and  works  had  been  such  as  to  command  any  attention 
to  such  an  assertion,  still  through  what  an  agony  of  incredulity,  and 
doubt,  and  amazement,  and  consternation,  must  the  mind  pass,  before 
it  could  settle  down  into  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  his  declaration. 
And  when  convinced  of  its  truth,  with  what  unspeakable  astonish- 
ment should  we  be  overwhelmed.  With  what  extreme  awe,  and 
entire  prostration  of  every  faculty,  should  we  approach  and  contem- 
plate such  a  being ;  if  indeed  man,  in  his  present  tenement  of  clay, 
could  endure  such  intercourse  with  his  Maker.  With  what  a  strong 
and  unrelaxing  grasp  would  the  idea  seize  upon  our  minds.  How  con- 
tinually would  it  be  expressed  in  the  most  forcible  language,  whenever 
we  had  occasion  to  speak  of  him.  What  a  deep  and  indelible  color- 
ing would  it  give  to  every  thought  and  sentiment,  in  the  remotest  de- 
gree connected  with  an  agent  so  mysterious  and  so  awful.  But  we 
perceive  nothing  of  this  state  of  mind  in  the  disciples  of  our  Saviour ; 
but  much  that  gives  evidence  of  a  very  different  state  of  mind.  One 
may  read  over  the  first  three  Evangelists,  and  it  must  be  by  a  more 
than  ordinary  exercise  of  ingenuity,  if  he  discover  what  may  pass 
for  an  argument,  that  either  the  writers,  or  the-  numerous  individuals 
of  whom  they  speak,  regarded  our  Saviour  as  their  Maker  and  God  ; 
or  that  he  ever  assumed  that  character.  Can  we  believe,  that  if 
such  a  most  extraordinary  annunciation,  as  has  been  supposed,  had 
ever  actually  been  made  by  him,  no  particular  record  of  its  circum- 
stances, and  immediate  effects,  would  have  been  preserved  ?  That 
the  Evangelists,  in  their  accounts  of  their  Master,  would  have  omit- 
ted the  most  remarkable  event  in  his  history  and  their  own  T  and 
that  three  of  them,  at  least,  (for  so  much  must  be  conceded,)  would 
have  made  no  direct  mention  of  far  the  most  astonishing  fact  in  rela- 
tion to  his  character?  Read  over  the  account  of  the  conduct  and 
conversations  of  his.  disciples  with  their  Master,  and  put  it  to  your 
own  feelings,  whether  they  ever  thought  that  they  were  conversing 
with  their  God?  Read  over  these  accounts  attentively,  and  ask 
yourself,  if  this  supposition  do  not  appear  to  you  the  most  incongru- 


APPENDIX.  283 

ous  that  ever  entered  the  human  mind  1  Take  only  the  facts  and 
conversation,  which  occurred  before  our  Saviour's  crucifixion,  as 
related  by  St.  John.  Did  Judas  believe  that  he  was  betraying  his 
God?  Their  Master  washed  the  feet  of  his  Apostles.  Did  the 
Apostles  believe — but  the  question  is  too  shocking  to  be  stated  in 
plain  words.  Did  they  then  believe  their  Master  to  be  God,  when, 
surprised  at  his  taking  notice  of  an  inquiry  which  they  wished  to 
make,  but  which  they  had  not  in  fact  proposed,*  they  thus  addressed 
him  1  '  Now  we  are  sure  that  thou  knowest  all  things,  and  that 
there  is  no  need  for  any  man  to  question  thee.  By  this  we  know 
that  thou  can  test  from  GW.'f  Could  they  imagine,  that  he,  who, 
throughout  his  conversation,  spoke  of  himself  only  as  the  minister 
of  God,  and  who  in  their  presence  prayed  to  God,  was  himself  the 
Almighty?  Did  they  believe  it  was  the  Maker  of  Heaven  and 
Earth  whom  they  were  deserting,  when  ihey  left  him  upon  his  ap- 
prehension ?  But  there  is  hardly  a  fact  or  conversation  recorded  in 
the  history  of  our  Saviour's  ministry,  which  may  not  afford  ground 
for  such  questions  as  have  been  proposed.  He  who  maintains  that 
the  first  disciples  of  our  Saviour  did  ever  really  believe  that  they  were 
in  the  immediate  presence  of  their  God,  must  maintain  at  the  same 
time,  that  they  were  a  class  of  men  by  themselves,  and  that  all  their 
feelings  and  conduct  was  immeasurably  and  inconceivably  different, 
from  what  those  of  any  other  human  beings  would  have  been,  under 
the  same  belief. 

"  But  beside  the  entire  absence  of  that  state  of  mind,  which  must 
have  been  produced  by  this  belief,  there  are  other  continual  indica- 
tions, direct  and  indirect,  of  their  opinions  and  feelings  respecting 
their  Master,  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  supposition  of  its  exist- 
ence during  any  period  of  his  ministry  or  their  own.  Throughout 
the  New  Testament  we  find  nothing  which  implies  that  such  a  most 
extraordinary  change  of  feeling  ever  took  place  in  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  as  must  have  been  produced  by  the  communication  that  their 
Master  was  God  himself  upon  earth.  Nowhere  do  we  find  the 
expression  of  those  irresistible  and  absorbing  sentiments,  which  must 
have  possessed  their  minds  under  the  conviction  of  this  fact.  With 
this  conviction,  in  what  terms  would  they  have  spoken  of  his  cruci- 
fixion, and  of  the  circumstances  with  which  it  was  attended?  The 
power  of  language  would  have  sunk  under  them  in  the  attempt 
to  express  their  feelings.  Their  words,  when  they  approached  the 

*  See  John  xvi.  17,  18,  19.  t  John  xvi.  30. 


284  APPENDIX. 

subject,  would  have  been  little  more  than  a  thrilling  cry  of  horror 
and  indignation.  On  this  subject,  they  did  indeed  feel  most  deeply ; 
but  can  we  think  that  St.  Peter  regarded  his  Master  as  God  incar- 
nate, when  he  thus  addressed  the  Jews  by  whom  Christ  had  been 
crucified  *  '  Ye  men  of  Israel,  hear  these  words  ;  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
proved  to  you  to  be  A  MAN  FROM  GOD,  by  miracles  and  wonders 
and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as  ye  your- 
selves know,  him,  delivered  up  to  you  in  conformity  to  the  fixed 
will  and  foreknowledge  qf  God,  ye  have  crucified  and  slain  by  the 
hands  of  the  heathen.  Him  has  God  raised  to  life.'  " 

Professor  Norton  then  goes  on  to  show  how  difficult  it  would  have 
been  to  persuade  the  Jews  to  receive  this  doctrine,  so  opposed  to  the 
fundamental  principle  of  their  faith,  the  unity  of  God  ;  how  often  it 
would  have  to  be  explicitly  stated,  explained,  defended,  and  rein- 
forced ;  and  he  plainly  shows,  as  any  one  who  looks  into  the  Bible 
can  see,  that  we  can  find  there  nothing  of  the  kind. 


V. 

Mr.  French,  a  Roman  Catholic  Barrister,  in  a  discussion  between 
himself  and  the  Rev.  J.  Gumming,  at  Hammersmith,  in  1840,  page 
482,  makes  these  cutting  remarks  on  those  Protestants  who  de- 
nounce Unitarians  for  interpreting  the  Bible  for  themselves.  "  If 
the  Unitarian  be  not  a  Christian,"  he  says,  "  it  is  in  consequence  of 
that  prerogative  with  which  my  learned  friend  gratuitously  invests 
him,  namely,  the  right  of  interpreting  the  Bible  for  himself,  spurning 
the  authority  of  the  Church  of  Ages,  which  teaches  us  that  Christ 
is  both  God  and  man.  It  is  utterly  useless  for  my  friend  to  tell  me 
the  Unitarian  is  not  sincere  and  Christian.  What !  proscribe  all 
the  Unitarians  in  England  ;  men  of  splendid  and  commanding  genius  ; 
men  of  conscience  and  honor  ;  men  of  integrity  and  truth  ;  men  who 
live  and  die— die  actually  with  the  persuasion  that  Christ  is  mere 
man,  and  '  Intercessor' — who  believe  in  God  most  firmly  !  Is  it  just^ 
is  it  honorable,  to  say,  they  are  not  Christians,  when  it  is  his  very 
system,  the  system  which  he  himself  recommends,  that  has  caused 
their  unchristianization  T  Oh  it  is  really  unfair  !  it  is  decidedly  un 
kind,  ungenerous,  and  unfair  on  the  part  of  my  learned  friend,  or  on 
the  part  of  any  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England  or  Scotland." 


APPENDIX.  285 

w. 

To  continue  in  the  faith,  as  we  have  been  taught  it  in  the  Bible, 
is  one  thing,  and  to  continue  in  the  faith  as  we  have  been  taught  by 
human  interpretations,  is  another.  To  continue  in  the  faith  of  the 
Bible,  we  must  first  find  out  what  there  is  taught.  And  here,  at 
once,  opinions  are  formed  as  various  as  the  human  mind.  Dr. 
Campbell  remarks,  "  As  to  orthodox,  I  should  be  glad  to  know  the 
meaning  of  the  epithet.  Nothing,  you  say,  can  be  plainer.  The 
orthodox  are  those,  who,  in  religious  matters,  entertain  right 
opinions.  Be  it  so.  How,  then,  is  it  possible  I  should  know  who 
they  are  that  entertain  right  opinions,  before  I  know  what  opinions 
are  right?  I  must  therefore  unquestionably  know  orthodoxy,  be- 
fore I  can  know  or  judge  who  are  orthodox.  Now,  to  know  the 
truths  of  religion,  which  you  call  orthodox,  is  the  very  end  of  my 
inquiries :  and  am  I  to  begin  these  inquiries  on  the  presumption  that 
without  any  inquiry  I  know  it  already  ?  ....  There  is  nothing 
about  which  men  have  been,  and  still  are,  more  divided.  It  has 
been  accounted  orthodox  divinity  in  one  age,  which  hath  been 
branded  as  ridiculous  fanaticism  in  the  next.  It  is  at  this  day 
deemed  the  perfection  of  orthodoxy  in  one  country,  which  in  an 
adjacent  country  is  looked  upon  as  damnable  heresy.  Nay,  in  the 
same  country,  hath  not  every  sect  a  standard  of  its  own  ?  Ac- 
cordingly, when  any  person  seriously  uses  the  word,  before  we  can 
understand  his  meaning,  we  must  know  to  what  communion  he  be- 
longs. When  that  is  known,  we  comprehend  him  perfectly.  By 
the  orthodox  he  means  always  those  who  agree  in  opinion  with  him 
and  his  party  ;  and  by  the  heterodox,  those  who  differ  from  him. 
When  one  says,  then,  of  any  teacher  whatever,  that  all  the  ortho- 
dox acknowledge  his  orthodoxy,  he  says  neither  more  nor  less  than 
this  :  '  All  who  are  of  the  same  opinion  with  him,  of  which  number 
I  am  one,  believe  him  to  be  in  the  right.'  And  is  this  anything 
more  than  what  may  be  asserted  by  some  person  or  other,  of  every 
teacher  that  ever  did,  or  ever  will  exist?  ....  To  say  the  truth, 
we  have  but  too  many  ecclesiastic  terms  and  phrases  which  savor 
grossly  of  the  arts  of  a  crafty  priesthood,  who  meant  to  keep  the 
world  in  ignorance,  to  secure  an  implicit  faith  in  their  own  dogmas, 
and  to  intimidate  men  from  an  impartial  inquiry  into  holy  writ." — 
Letters  on  Systematic  Theology,  pp.  112 — 115. 

THE  END. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9 — 15nv-10.'48(B1039)444 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  Or 

LOS  ANGSSES 


BT 
111 
S55   1 
1346 


